Standards and Methods of Proof

In an erudite and wide-ranging contribution to this Revista, Jacopo Della Torre leverages the analytical power of comparative legal history to illuminate contemporary debates surrounding the standard of proof for criminal convictions. At the invitation of the Editors, I am pleased to have this oppo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Paul Roberts
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura Jurídica 2025-06-01
Series:Quaestio Facti
Subjects:
Online Access:https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23151
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849424307075153920
author Paul Roberts
author_facet Paul Roberts
author_sort Paul Roberts
collection DOAJ
description In an erudite and wide-ranging contribution to this Revista, Jacopo Della Torre leverages the analytical power of comparative legal history to illuminate contemporary debates surrounding the standard of proof for criminal convictions. At the invitation of the Editors, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on Della Torre’s thought-provoking article.1 The following remarks are of two broad kinds. The first section of this Comment addresses methodological issues in comparative legal scholarship, largely expressing agreement with Della Torre’s general approach, but with a few caveats and clarifications for further consideration. In the second section, I turn to practical questions of procedural jurisprudence and institutional practice in criminal adjudication. With the disciplinary agenda and biases of an English lawyer, my thoughts on these issues will embroider upon, and diverge somewhat, from Della Torre’s exposition. I will also suggest some minor exegetical corrections and refinements.
format Article
id doaj-art-1e9ec410986b4dec94de03c773951920
institution Kabale University
issn 2660-4515
2604-6202
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher Universitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura Jurídica
record_format Article
series Quaestio Facti
spelling doaj-art-1e9ec410986b4dec94de03c7739519202025-08-20T03:30:14ZengUniversitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura JurídicaQuaestio Facti2660-45152604-62022025-06-01910.33115/udg_bib/qf.i9.23151Standards and Methods of ProofPaul Roberts0University of Nottingham, School of Law In an erudite and wide-ranging contribution to this Revista, Jacopo Della Torre leverages the analytical power of comparative legal history to illuminate contemporary debates surrounding the standard of proof for criminal convictions. At the invitation of the Editors, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on Della Torre’s thought-provoking article.1 The following remarks are of two broad kinds. The first section of this Comment addresses methodological issues in comparative legal scholarship, largely expressing agreement with Della Torre’s general approach, but with a few caveats and clarifications for further consideration. In the second section, I turn to practical questions of procedural jurisprudence and institutional practice in criminal adjudication. With the disciplinary agenda and biases of an English lawyer, my thoughts on these issues will embroider upon, and diverge somewhat, from Della Torre’s exposition. I will also suggest some minor exegetical corrections and refinements. https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23151standard of proof
spellingShingle Paul Roberts
Standards and Methods of Proof
Quaestio Facti
standard of proof
title Standards and Methods of Proof
title_full Standards and Methods of Proof
title_fullStr Standards and Methods of Proof
title_full_unstemmed Standards and Methods of Proof
title_short Standards and Methods of Proof
title_sort standards and methods of proof
topic standard of proof
url https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23151
work_keys_str_mv AT paulroberts standardsandmethodsofproof