Standards of fair justice and their relationship to standards of proof in criminal proceedings

The purpose of the article is to define the concept, system and content of fair justice standards and outline their relationship to standards of evidence in criminal proceedings. The purpose of the study is to reveal the content of the right to a fair trial, distinguish fair justice standards and establish its relationship with standards of evidence in criminal proceedings. The research methodology consists of comparative law, structural system methods and formal legal methods. The study found that testing standards are covered by justice standards, expanding, specifying, and clarifying their content. The content of the fair justice standards "examination of the case by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law", "adversarial procedure", "equality of the parties", "frankness of the examination of evidence", "presumption of innocence" and reveals the "motivation of judicial decisions". It is concluded that each of these concepts is a heuristic contribution to test standards. As a result of the study, the author's definition of the concept of "fair justice standards" is formulated and the concept is based on its relationship with the standards of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Evidence and Sensibility

This chapter derives from a book symposium on Doris’ (2002), Lack of Character, and responds to commentary by Annas, Arplay, and Solomon. The responses defend Doris’ situationist skepticism about character from a variety of objections. Among the topics considered are: standards of evidence in moral psychology, the role of empirical considerations in normative thought, the role of traits in psychological explanation, the appropriate conceptualization of character, the role of character in interpersonal relationships, and the relation of culture and character.

The legitimacy of spectral evidence during the Salem witchcraft trials

<p>This paper looks at the use of spectral evidence during the Salem witch trials and examines whether its use was legitimate and in accordance with the evidential standards of the time (1692). Ultimately this paper finds that the use of spectral evidence was legitimate as it followed the slim guidelines available at the time. The court followed a strong precedent and the limited statutory guidance and instructions that were available. However there was acknowledgement at the time that spectral evidence was limiting the rights of those accused and was leading to unjust convictions. As such these trials invoked an acknowledgement of more modern standards of evidence. Therefore spectral evidence was legitimately used given the guidelines of the time despite the unjust effect that it had.</p>

The legitimacy of spectral evidence during the Salem witchcraft trials

<p>This paper looks at the use of spectral evidence during the Salem witch trials and examines whether its use was legitimate and in accordance with the evidential standards of the time (1692). Ultimately this paper finds that the use of spectral evidence was legitimate as it followed the slim guidelines available at the time. The court followed a strong precedent and the limited statutory guidance and instructions that were available. However there was acknowledgement at the time that spectral evidence was limiting the rights of those accused and was leading to unjust convictions. As such these trials invoked an acknowledgement of more modern standards of evidence. Therefore spectral evidence was legitimately used given the guidelines of the time despite the unjust effect that it had.</p>

Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations

Clearinghouses are influential repositories of information on the effectiveness of social interventions. To identify which interventions are “evidence-based,” clearinghouses review intervention evaluations using published standards of evidence that focus primarily on internal validity and causal inferences. Open science practices can improve trust in evidence from evaluations on the effectiveness of social interventions. Including open science practices in clearinghouse standards of evidence is one of many efforts that could increase confidence in designations of interventions as “evidence-based.” In this study, we examined the policies, procedures, and practices of 10 federal evidence clearinghouses that review preventive interventions—an important and influential subset of all evidence clearinghouses. We found that seven consider at least one open science practice when evaluating interventions: replication (6 of 10 clearinghouses), public availability of results (6), investigator conflicts of interest (3), design and analysis transparency (3), study registration (2), and protocol sharing (1). We did not identify any policies, procedures, or practices related to analysis plan registration, data sharing, code sharing, material sharing, and citation standards. We provide a framework with specific recommendations to help federal and other evidence clearinghouses implement the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. Our proposed “TOP Guidelines for Clearinghouses” includes reporting whether evaluations used open science practices, incorporating open science practices in their standards for receiving “evidence-based” designations, and verifying that evaluations used open science practices. Doing so could increase the trustworthiness of evidence used for policy making and support improvements throughout the evidence ecosystem.

Common Methodological Problems in Randomized Controlled Trials of Preventive Interventions

Objective. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard in evaluating whether intervention results are in line with causal claims of beneficial effects. However, given that poor design and incorrect analysis may lead to biased outcomes, simply employing an RCT is not enough to say an intervention “works.” This paper applies a subset of the Society for Prevention Research (SPR) Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research, with a focus on internal validity (making causal inferences) to determine the degree to which RCTs of preventive interventions are well-designed and analyzed, and whether authors provide a clear description of the methods used to report their study findings. Methods. We conducted a descriptive analysis of 851 RCTs published from 2010-2020 and reviewed by the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development web-based registry of scientifically-proven and scalable interventions. We used Blueprints’ evaluation criteria that correspond to a subset of SPR’s standards of evidence. Results. Only 22% of the sample satisfied important criteria for minimizing biases that threaten internal validity. Overall, we identified an average of 1-2 methodological weaknesses per RCT. The most frequent sources of bias were problems related to baseline non-equivalence (i.e., differences between conditions at randomization) or differential attrition (i.e., differences between completers versus attritors or differences between study conditions that may compromise the randomization). Additionally, over half the sample (51%) had missing or incomplete tests to rule out these potential sources of bias. Conclusions. Most preventive intervention RCTs need improvement in rigor to permit causal inference claims that an intervention is effective. Researchers also must improve reporting of methods and results to fully assess methodological quality. These advancements will increase the usefulness of preventive interventions by ensuring the credibility and usability of RCT findings.

Social Impact Archaeology: Pontefract Castle and the Gatehouse Project

Archaeology is said to add value to development, creating a deeper sense of place, community identity as well as improving health and wellbeing. Accentuating these wider social values has been welcomed by a profession keen to broaden its public relevance and legitimacy and protect its seat at the table in modern cultural life, but how much, if at all, do the public actually benefit from developer-led archaeology? Benefits to individuals and communities from archaeology projects are often abstract, intangible and difficult to attribute, and the discipline arguably lacks a satisfactory frame of reference around which it can express and design for these additional social values. Drawing on the language of social impact investing, this article will explore how the UK-based collaborative platform, DigVentures, has addressed this challenge. It introduces a 'Theory of Change' and 'Standards of Evidence' framework to account for the impact of development-led archaeology programmes, illustrating the causal links between activity and change through the case of the Pontefract Castle Gatehouse Project. It is complemented by a short documentary film exploring the spectrum of digital and physical opportunities for participation by the public alongside a team of highly experienced professional field archaeologists, demonstrating how development-led archaeology can be designed to accomplish far more than answer a planning brief.

Law and Public Reason

This chapter provides an account of Hegel’s conception of the law and of the law’s realization within Civil Society and the State. It is argued that Hegel is a legal positivist because he holds that right is binding only when it has been promulgated as law, and that law can be valid even if it does not measure up to the standard of right. The chapter gives an account of Hegel’s contextualism and shows that he is committed to an essential but limited role for philosophy in determining the content of the law. Ultimately Hegel’s view is best understood as a public reason conception of the rationality of law. The court system is a prototype of public reason in that its goal is to guarantee standards of evidence and publicity in a setting of mutual recognition. The chapter argues that Hegel does believe in the need for a written constitution, and that his view of the legislative power is a further elucidation of public reason based on the idea of representative interests.