Pragmatic encroachment and legal proof

Abstract

know that they're guilty. Your belief that the defendant is guilty is like the belief that a particular lottery ticket is not going to win the lottery. It is very likely on your evidence, but it doesn't amount to knowledge. As I have argued elsewhere, legal proof requires knowledge. 1 A defendant is proven guilty only if the factfinder knows that the defendant is guilty, where this knowledge is grounded in the evidence admitted at trial. Suppose that's right. 2 Here is a second claim about knowledge: whether you know something can depend on the stakes. If you have a belief that is supported by plenty of evidence, but it would be disastrous for you to act on your belief if your belief turned out to be false, then it may be hard for your belief to be knowledge, even if it is actually true. As some would put it, knowledge is subject to pragmatic encroachment. Here's an illustration: 3Chocolate: Ishani and Brian are eating some holiday snacks from their friend Chandra, including some carob brownies.Ishani: These chocolate brownies are fantastic.Brian: Actually, Chandra has been really into making everything with carob lately, so these brownies don't have chocolate in them.Ishani: Oh, so we could serve them at the party tonight, without getting the kids all hyped up on caffeine.Brian: Hang on, I better check about the carob. One of the kids coming over has a lifethreatening chocolate allergy, so we should be absolutely sure not to serve any chocolate.

Does legal epistemology rest on a mistake? On fetishism, two‐tier system design, and conscientious fact‐finding

“…We thank Sarah Moss for relevant discussion. 23 Moss's (2021a) contribution to this volume seems to us like an especially clear example of knowledge fetishism.…”

“…2323Moss's (2021a) contribution to this volume seems to us like an especially clear example of knowledge fetishism. The thought that the decision on what information should and what should not be disclosed to juries in criminal trials should be guided – solely, no less!…”

Criminological Characteristics of an Attack on the Life of a Law Enforcement Officer, a Special Government Agency, or a Military Serviceman in Kazakhstan

“…Researchers in the field of law focus on the fact that this crime should be considered as a violation of state security in the context of the exercise of supreme state power, as well as a threat to the life and health of citizens. Legal scholars in their analyses note that the direct object of this crime is not only the security of the state, but also the safety of all citizens whose life and health may be at risk (Gnatenko et al, 2020;Moss, 2021). Indeed, this crime can have a serious impact on the security of the state, since it concerns the highest structures of government and government bodies, whose work is aimed at ensuring the stability and normal functioning of the country.…”

Are There Counterexamples to the Consistency Principle?

“…We know that it's not because we know about the vast literature on naked statistical evidence. 9 The literature suggests that there's a right and wrong way of 9 For arguments that blame requires something besides naked statistical evidence, see Buchak (2014), Littlejohn (2020), Moss (2021), Smith (2021), andThomson (1986). Some writers think that we should explain the inability of this evidence to rationalise responses like punishment and blame because of moral encroachment.…”

“… 9 For arguments that blame requires something besides naked statistical evidence, see Buchak (2014), Littlejohn (2020), Moss (2021), Smith (2021), and Thomson (1986). Some writers think that we should explain the inability of this evidence to rationalise responses like punishment and blame because of moral encroachment.…”