Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Foundations of Evidence Law

Bibliographic Data

ID5779861
AuthorsAlex Stein (corresponding author)
Year2005
Pages264
Publication date2005-08-25
Open AccessNo
TypeBOOK
VenueFoundations of Evidence Law (SOURCE_BOOK)
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198257363.001.0001
OpenAlexW4205375815
Open LibraryOL9408460M
ISBN9780198257363
LanguageEN
Citations received40
References cited1

This book examines systematically the underlying theory of evidence in Anglo-American legal systems and identifies the defining characteristics of adjudicative fact-finding. The book develops an innovative theory which sets aside the traditional vision of evidence law as facilitating the discovery of the truth. Combining probability theory, epistemology, economic analysis, and moral philosophy it argues instead that the fundamental purpose of evidence law is to apportion the risk of error in conditions of uncertainty. The book begins by identifying the domain of evidence law. It then describes the basic traits of adjudicative fact-finding and explores the epistemological foundations of the concept. This discussion identifies the problem of probabilistic deduction that accompanies generalizations to which fact-finders resort. The book advances the principle of maximal individualization that does not allow fact-finders to make a finding against a person when the evidence they use is not susceptible to individualized testing. This analysis identifies allocation of the risk of error as requiring regulation by evidence law. Advocating a principled allocation of the risk of error, the book denounces free proof for allowing individual judges to apportion this risk as they deem fit. The book then develops three fundamental principles for allocating the risk of error: the cost-efficiency principle which applies across the board; the equality principle which applies in civil litigation; and the equal best principle which applies in criminal trials. Regulating both the admissibility of evidence and its sufficiency, these principles explain and justify many existing evidentiary rules

Aside · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · British Isles · Courts & procedure · Criminal law · Criminal Law - General · England · English legal system: law of evidence · Evidence · Evidence (law) · Great britain · Law · Law Profession · Legal Reference · united states · USA

  • Justice In-Between

    Federico Picinali•Justice In-Between•2022

  • Sources, données et validation empirique

    Open Access•Étienne Anheim, Alessandro Stanziani•Histoire & Mesure•2025

  • Expert Signs and Legal Burdens

    Open Access•Giovanni Tuzet•International Journal for the…•2023

  • Deciding, ‘What Happened?’ When We Don’t Really Know

    Open Access•Nayha Acharya•Canadian Journal of Law &…•2020

  • Reasonable Doubt from Unconceived Alternatives

    Open Access•Hylke Jellema•Erkenntnis•2024

  • Uncovering Alethia

    Open Access•James Kelly White•Journal of Critical Realism•2025

  • The Policy of Evidence

    Open Access•Giovanni Tuzet•Theoria•2021

  • Plausible Crime Stories

    Open Access•Orna Alyagon Darr•Plausible Crime Stories•2018

  • Exclusión de la prueba pericial científica (de baja calidad epistémica) en fase de admisibilidad en procesos penales de tradición románica-continental

    Open Access•Juan Sebastián Vera Sánchez•Revista Brasileira de Direito…•2021

  • Uma concepção minimalista e garantista da presunção de inocência

    Open Access•Jordi Ferrer Beltrán•Revista Brasileira de Direito…•2018

  • The defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the Italian criminal justice system

    Open Access•Francesco Callari•Revista Brasileira de Direito…•2021

  • Truth, Evidence, Truth

    Daniela Accatino, Cath Collins•Journal of Human Rights Practice•2016

  • The ‘perfect storm’ of Reach

    Elizabeth Fisher•Journal of Risk Research•2008

  • Rebooting the new evidence scholarship

    Open Access•John R Welch•The International Journal of…•2020

  • Measuring justice

    Open Access•William Cullerne Bown•The International Journal of…•2019

  • Civil liability and the 50%+ standard of proof

    Open Access•Martin Smith•The International Journal of…•2021

  • Laudan’s error

    Open Access•Diego Dei Vecchi•The International Journal of…•2020

  • The civil standard of proof—what is it, actually

    Open Access•Mark Schweizer•The International Journal of…•2016

  • Can there be a burden of the best explanation

    Open Access•Gustavo Ribeiro•The International Journal of…•2018

  • The criminal justice system as a problem in binary classification

    Open Access•William Cullerne Bown•The International Journal of…•2018

  • Killing Kaplanism

    Open Access•William Cullerne Bown•The International Journal of…•2018

  • Evidence, Risk, and Proof Paradoxes

    Open Access•Giada Fratantonio•The International Journal of…•2021

  • The ‘mirror of evidence’ and the plausibility of judicial proof

    Open Access•Baosheng Zhang, Jia Cao•The International Journal of…•2016

  • The probabilism debate that never was

    Open Access•Kiel Brennan-Marquez•The International Journal of…•2019

  • Naked statistical evidence and incentives for lawful conduct

    Open Access•Christian Dahlman•The International Journal of…•2020

  • Incertidumbre probatoria por exceso

    Open Access•Jesús Ezurmendia Álvarez, María de los Ángeles Gonzalez Coulon et al.•Política criminal•2022

  • Juicio por jurados. La unanimidad en el veredicto de culpabilidad como garantía

    Open Access•E Matías Díaz•Política criminal•2022

  • El sistema de derecho probatorio bajo medieval de las Siete Partidas y las Federal Rules of Evidence de 1975

    Open Access•Johann Benfeld, Johann S Benfeld Escobar et al.•Revista de estudios histórico-juríd…•2018

  • The trouble with standards of proof

    Open Access•Zoë A Johnson King•Synthese•2021

  • The reasonable doubt standard as inference to the best explanation

    Open Access•Hylke Jellema•Synthese•2021

  • When statistical evidence is not specific enough

    Open Access•Marcello Di Bello•Synthese•2021

  • Sensitivity, safety, and admissibility

    Open Access•Zoë A Johnson King•Synthese•2022

  • From “Trust Me” to “Show Me” Journalism

    Niv Mor, Zvi Reich•Journalism Practice•2017

  • Making Sources Visible

    Mark Coddington, Logan Molyneux•Journalism Practice•2021

  • Justifying the news

    Open Access•Zvi Reich, Aviv Barnoy•Journalism•2021

  • Skirmishing toward a general theory of evidence and proof

    Open Access•Kevin M Clermont•The International Journal of…•2024

  • Reframing judicial proof

    Open Access•Bin Wei•The International Journal of…•2025

  • Foundations of Evidence Law

    Alex Stein•Foundations of Evidence Law•2005

  • Criminal Proof

    Open Access•L Ro•The Philosophical Quarterly•2023

  • Debating the legitimacy of a contested environmental illness

    Open Access•Tarryn Phillips•Sociology of Health & Illness•2010

  • Foundations of Evidence Law

    Alex Stein•Foundations of Evidence Law•2005

Unique citing works40
Citations per year1,9
Citation span2005 - 2025 (21)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 40

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae