Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:18:50.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering the Rule of Consideration: Probabilistic Knowledge and Legal Proof

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2020

Tim Smartt Open the ORCID record for Tim Smartt [Opens in a new window]
Tim Smartt*
Affiliation:
The University of Notre Dame Australia and The University of Sydney, Australia
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I provide an argument for rejecting Sarah Moss's recent account of legal proof. Moss's account is attractive in a number of ways. It provides a new version of a knowledge-based theory of legal proof that elegantly resolves a number of puzzles about mere statistical evidence in the law. Moreover, the account promises to have attractive implications for social and moral philosophy, in particular about the impermissibility of racial profiling and other harmful kinds of statistical generalisation. In this paper, I show that Moss's account of legal proof crucially depends on a moral norm called the rule of consideration. I argue that we have a number of reasons to be sceptical of this rule. Once we reject the rule, it is not clear that Moss's account of legal proof is either plausible or attractive.

Keywords

Probabilistic knowledgemere statistical evidencelegal proofmoral encroachmentSarah Moss
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 303 - 318
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Basu, R. (2019 a). ‘What We Epistemically Owe to Each Other.’ Philosophical Studies 176, 915–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basu, R. (2019 b). ‘The Wrongs of Racist Beliefs.’ Philosophical Studies 176, 2497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blome-Tillmann, M. (2017). ‘‘More Likely Than Not’: Knowledge First and the Role of Bare Statistical Evidence in Courts of Law.’ In Carter, J.A., Gordon, E.C. and Jarvis, B. (eds), Knowledge First: Approaches in Epistemology and Mind, pp. 278–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M. and Hedden, B. (2019). ‘Legal Probabilism: A Qualified Defence.’ Journal of Political Philosophy 27(4), 448–68.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M., Regan, H.M. and Ferson, S. (2001). ‘Is it a Crime to Belong to a Reference Class?’ Journal of Political Philosophy 9(2), 168–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S. (1977). ‘Two Kinds of Respect.’ Ethics 88(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Bello, M. and O'Neil, C. (2020). ‘Profile Evidence, Fairness, and the Risks of Mistaken Convictions.’ Ethics 130(2), 147–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V. (2007). The Trial on Trial (vol. 3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Eidelson, B. (2013). ‘Treating People as Individuals.’ In Hellman, D. and Moreau, S. (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Discrimination Law, pp. 203–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D., Spectre, L. and Fisher, T. (2012). ‘Statistical Evidence, Sensitivity, and the Legal Value of Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 40(3), 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, G. (Forthcoming). ‘Legal Evidence and Knowledge.’ In Lasonen-Aarnio, M. and Littlejohn, C. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gendler, T. (2011). ‘On the Epistemic Costs of Implicit Bias.’ Philosophical Studies 156(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, D. (2020). ‘Acting on Probabilistic Knowledge.’ Res Philosophica 97(1), 109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. (2007). ‘The Reference Class Problem is Your Problem Too.’ Synthese 156(3), 563–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2017). ‘Truth, Knowledge, and the Standard of Proof in Criminal Law.’ Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1608-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, M. (2004). ‘Review of John Hawthorne, Knowledge and Lotteries.’ Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 8. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/knowledge-and-lotteries/.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2018 a). Probabilistic Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S. (2018 b). ‘Moral Encroachment.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 118(2), 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S. (Forthcoming). Knowledge and Legal Proof. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nesson, C. (1979). ‘Reasonable Doubt and Permissive Inferences: The Value of Complexity.’ Harvard Law Review 92(6), 1187–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesson, C. (1985). ‘The Evidence or the Event? On Judicial Proof and the Acceptability of Verdicts.’ Harvard Law Review 98(7), 1357–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, M. (2010). ‘The Gettier Problem and Legal Proof.’ Legal Theory 16(1), 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, M. (2019). ‘The Paradoxes of Legal Proof: A Critical Guide.’ Boston University Law Review 99(1), 233–90.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (1989). ‘Consequentialism and Respect for Persons.’ Ethics 100(1), 116–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2015). ‘Risk.’ Metaphilosophy 46(3), 436–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redmayne, M. (2008). ‘Exploring the Proof Paradoxes.’ Legal Theory 14(4), 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smartt, T. (2019). ‘Review of Sarah Moss, Probabilistic Knowledge.’ Ethics 129(2), 430–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. (2018). ‘When Does Evidence Suffice for Conviction?’ Mind 127(508), 1193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J.J. (1986). ‘Liability and Individualized Evidence.’ Law and Contemporary Problems 49(3), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribe, L.H. (1971). ‘Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process.’ Harvard Law Review 84(6), 1329–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, D.T. (1991). ‘The Morality of Statistical Proof and the Risk of Mistaken Liability.’ Cardozo Law Review 13(2–3), 935–76.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar