The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability

2015 ◽  
pp. 19-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corina Andone
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Political Accountability

scholarly journals Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corina Andone
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Political Accountability ◽  
Concrete Case ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Difference

Abstract In this paper, the author examines the burden of proof in the argu- mentative confrontations taking part in practices of political accountability. She does so by explaining how politicians maneuver strategically with the burden of proof in an attempt at winning the discussion in which they are involved. After making clear the role of the burden of proof in defining the difference of opinion in argumentative confrontations, the author outlines the constraints imposed by practices of political accountability on the burden of proof. Finally, she analyzes in detail a concrete case in which a politician maneuvers in such a way that his burden of proof is significantly diminished.

VA Relaxes Burden of Proof to Qualify for PTSD Treatment

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Ptsd Treatment

The CSI Effect

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Television Programs ◽  
Forensic Evidence ◽  
Csi Effect ◽  
Real Phenomenon ◽  
Scene Investigation

The CSI Effect posits that exposure to television programs that portray forensic science (e.g., CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) can change the way jurors evaluate forensic evidence. The most commonly researched hypothesis under the CSI Effect suggests that shows like CSI depict an unrealistically high standard of forensic science and thus unreasonably inflate the expectations of jurors. Jurors are thus more likely to vote to acquit, and prosecutors face higher burden of proof. We review (1) the theory behind the CSI Effect, (2) the perception of the effect among legal actors, (3) the academic treatment of the effect, and (4) how courts have dealt with the effect. We demonstrate that while legal actors do see the CSI Effect as a serious issue, there is virtually no empirical evidence suggesting it is a real phenomenon. Moreover, many of the remedies employed by courts may do no more than introduce bias into juror decision making or even trigger the CSI Effect when it would not normally occur (i.e., the self-fulfilling prophesy). We end with suggestions for the proper treatment of the CSI Effect in courts, and directions for future scholarly work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document