As a result of recent scandals concerning evidence and proof in the administration of criminal justice - ranging from innocent people on death row in the United States to misuse of statistics leading to wrongful convictions in The Netherlands and elsewhere - inquiries into the logic of evidence and proof have taken on a new urgency both in an academic and practical sense. This study presents a broad perspective on logic by focusing on inference not just in isolation but as embedded in contexts of procedure and investigation. With special attention being paid to recent developments in Artificial Intelligence and the Law, specifically related to evidentiary reasoning, this book provides clarification of problems of logic and argumentation in relation to evidence and proof. As the vast majority of legal conflicts relate to contested facts, rather than contested law, this volume concerning facts as prime determinants of legal decisions presents an important contribution to the field for both scholars and practitioners.

Winner of the Scribes Book Award “Displays a level of intellectual honesty one rarely encounters these days...This is delightful stuff.” —Barton Swaim, Wall Street Journal “At a time when the concept of truth itself is in trouble, this lively and accessible account provides vivid and deep analysis of the practices addressing what is reliably true in law, science, history, and ordinary life. The Proof offers both timely and enduring insights.” —Martha Minow, former Dean of Harvard Law School “His essential argument is that in assessing evidence, we need, first of all, to recognize that evidence comes in degrees...and that probability, the likelihood that the evidence or testimony is accurate, matters.” —Steven Mintz, Inside Higher Education “I would make Proof one of a handful of books that all incoming law students should read...Essential and timely.” —Emily R. D. Murphy, Law and Society Review In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence. To help us navigate this polarized world awash in misinformation, preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes a much-needed corrective. How we know what we think we know is largely a matter of how we weigh the evidence. But evidence is no simple thing. Law, science, public and private decision making—all rely on different standards of evidence. From vaccine and food safety to claims of election-fraud, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses to climate science, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer reveals how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and makes the case that evidence is not just a matter of legal rules, it is the cornerstone of judgment.

Susan Haack brings her distinctive work in theory of knowledge and philosophy of science to bear on real-life legal issues.

A leading expert in informal logic, Douglas Walton turns his attention in this new book to how reasoning operates in trials and other legal contexts, with special emphasis on the law of evidence. The new model he develops, drawing on methods of argumentation theory that are gaining wide acceptance in computing fields like artificial intelligence, can be used to identify, analyze, and evaluate specific types of legal argument. In contrast with approaches that rely on deductive and inductive logic and rule out many common types of argument as fallacious, Walton&’s aim is to provide a more expansive view of what can be considered &"reasonable&" in legal argument when it is construed as a dynamic, rule-governed, and goal-directed conversation. This dialogical model gives new meaning to the key notions of relevance and probative weight, with the latter analyzed in terms of pragmatic criteria for what constitutes plausible evidence rather than truth.

This book examines the legal and moral theory behind the law of evidence and proof, arguing that only by exploring the nature of responsibility in fact-finding can the role and purpose of much of the law be fully understood. Ho argues that the court must not only find the truth to do justice, it must do justice in finding the truth.

This book builds on the success of the First International Conference on Facts and Evidence: A Dialogue between Law and Philosophy (Shanghai, China, May 2016), which was co-hosted by the Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization (CICJC) and East China Normal University. The Second International Conference on Facts and Evidence: A Dialogue between Law and History was jointly organized by the CICJC, the Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science (ELFS) at China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL), and Peking University School of Transnational Law (STL) in Shenzhen, China, on November 16–17, 2019. Historians, legal scholars and legal practitioners share the same interest in ascertaining the “truth” in their respective professional endeavors. It is generally recognized that any historical study without truthful narration of historical events is fiction and that any judicial trial without accurate fact-finding is a miscarriage of justice. In both historical research and the judicial process, practitioners are invariably called upon, before making any arguments, to prove the underlying facts using evidence, regardless of how the concept is defined or employed in different academic or practical contexts. Thus, historians and legal professionals have respectively developed theories and methodological tools to inform and explain the process of gathering evidentiary proof. When lawyers and judges reconsider the facts of cases, “questions of law” are actually a subset of “questions of fact,” and thus, the legal interpretation process also involves questions of “historical fact.” The book brings together more than twenty leading history and legal scholars from around the world to explore a range of issues concerning the role of facts as evidence in both disciplines. As such, the book is of enduring value to historians, legal scholars and everyone interested in truth-seeking.

In Evidence in International Criminal Trials Mark Klamberg compares procedural activities relevant for international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court, including evaluation, collection, disclosure, admissibility and presentation of evidence. The author analyses what objectives are recognized in relation to the aforementioned procedural activities and whether it is possible to establish a priority between them. The concept of “robustness” is introduced to discuss the quantity of evidence in addition to concepts that deal with quality. Finally, the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence method is examined as one of several analytical steps that may contribute to the systematic evaluation of evidence. The book seeks to provide guidance on how to confront legal as well as factual issues.