Most contemporary criminal justice systems adopt a 'binary' system of verdicts. In a binary system, there is a single evidential threshold, or standard of proof. If the standard is met, the verdict is 'guilty', the defendant is convicted, and punishment is permitted. If the standard is not met, the verdict is 'not guilty', the defendant is acquitted, and punishment is forbidden. There is no middle ground between the verdict of 'not guilty' and that of 'guilty'. An intermediate verdict represents such middle ground, intermediate between acquittal and conviction both in terms of the strength of the incriminating evidence that is needed to warrant the verdict and in terms of the severity of the consequences that the verdict may produce for the defendant.
Justice In-Between is a study of intermediate criminal verdicts and advances a novel justification of such controversial devices, with the aim to produce a consensus amongst scholars subscribing to different theories of punishment. Indeed, the book shows that one cannot investigate the choice of the standard of proof nor, importantly, that of the verdict system, in isolation from the question of the justification for punishing.
Justice In-Between studies historical and extant examples of intermediate criminal verdicts and engages with the debates that have accompanied them, including the popular argument that intermediate criminal verdicts are incompatible with the presumption of innocence. In doing so, the book offers an original account of the meaning and of the justification of the presumption. Relying on decision theory, Justice In-Between makes a case for intermediate criminal verdicts and shows that such decision-theoretic case is viable under any of the main theories of punishment.
Rezensionen / Stimmen
[The book] puts [intermediate verdicts] on the table and gives them the attention they deserve. The account is rigorously argued, rooted in an understanding of criminal procedure and, without doubt, provides food for thought to those who have never questioned the binary verdict system. * Modern Law Review * Justice In-Between is a highly accomplished book. It is rigorously argued and - unlike some theoretical contributions on this subject - is rooted in an understanding of criminal procedure (...) There is much to admire in Justice In-Between (...) [O]ne of the key strengths of the book is that it is not a work of pure philosophy. It makes a proposal with practical utility, grounded in the reality of the justice system. * Fiona Leverick, The Edinburgh Law Review * Federico Picinali opens his excellent Justice In-Between with a puzzle about criminal trials and intermediate options (...) One significant contribution of Picinali's book is that he truly follows through on the implications of the expected utility approach to criminal trials. Perhaps he is more thorough in this than any of the other theorists who have endorsed this approach. * Martin Smith, The Edinburgh Law Review * Justice In-Between is an impressive and timely book. Its provocative arguments have much to offer a Scottish readership as the criminal process faces a radical redesign, and the abolition of not proven remains a very real possibility. The book is expertly crafted, and refreshing in paying close and fair minded attention to positions other than its own. Despite the theoretical reservations expressed here (...) there is much to be gained by following Picinali's lead in questioning the binary conception of innocence and guilt which most jurisdictions adopt. * Gabrielle Watson, The Edinburgh Law Review * The final verdict on this book? (...) Evidence law and penal theorists will be the most receptive, and those already working within the decision-theoretic paradigm will perhaps extract the greatest value from this systematic, rigorous and unconventional application. * Paul Roberts, University of Nottingham, School of Law *
Reihe
Sprache
Verlagsort
Zielgruppe
Produkt-Hinweis
Fadenheftung
Gewebe-Einband
Maße
Höhe: 241 mm
Breite: 164 mm
Dicke: 23 mm
Gewicht
ISBN-13
978-0-19-886459-2 (9780198864592)
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited or by the publishers or by their respective licensors: all rights reserved.
Schweitzer Klassifikation
Federico Picinali is an Associate Professor at LSE Law School. He graduated in law from the University of Milan. He has an LLM from Yale Law School and a PhD in law from the University of Trento. He teaches and researches in criminal law and evidence law, with a particular interest in theoretical approaches to these subjects. He has written on the criminal standard of proof, on inferential reasoning in legal fact-finding, on statistical evidence, on improperly obtained evidence, on criminal intention and on self-defence, among other topics. His work appeared in several journals, including the Modern Law Review, Law & Philosophy, the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Criminal Law & Philosophy, the International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Jurisprudence, and Law, Probability & Risk.
Autor*in
Associate Professor of LawAssociate Professor of Law, LSE Law School
Introduction
1: Intermediate Verdicts Are Not a Fanciful Construct
2: The Presumption of Innocence: A Decisive Objection to Intermediate Verdicts?
3: Acquittal vs Conviction: We Can All Be Expected-Value Maximisers in this Choice
4: The Decision-theoretic Case for Intermediate Criminal Verdicts
5: A Battery of Objections
6: Conclusion
