Search results
- Preponderance of the evidence is a standard of proof used in civil cases that requires the party bearing the burden of proof to present evidence that is more convincing than the opposing side's evidence. This means that the evidence must show that something is more likely true than not true, which is often quantified as being over 50% persuasive.
May 12, 2021 · The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the preponderance of evidence, often said to be met when a proposition is shown to be more than 50% likely to be true.
- Login
The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the...
- Forgotten your password
We would like to show you a description here but the site...
- Login
Jan 1, 2006 · PDF | On Jan 1, 2006, Claude Fluet and others published Preponderance of evidence | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
- General rights
- When is the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Optimal?
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Why preponderance of the evidence maximizes deterrence
- On the non-use of ex-ante information
- No risk-aversion
- Zero social cost of imposing penalties
- Investigations may occur even if there is no unlawful action
- Discussion
- Summary
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Henrik Lando, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy Copenhagen Business School, e-mail: hl.ivs@cbs.dk
This paper defines the preponderance of the evidence standard and establishes it as a benchmark, optimal under certain idealized conditions. The main conditions are: only efficiency matters (not fairness); people are risk-neutral; sanctions are socially costless; and a suit may be brought even if no violation of the law has occurred. Concerning the...
Different standards of proof are employed in different kinds of legal disputes. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard mainly used in criminal law, proof by clear and convincing evidence is the standard required e.g. for civil commitment of the mentally ill1, while preponderance of the evidence is generally held to be the standard employed in ci...
It will now be argued that preponderance of the evidence, as just defined, maximizes deterrence11. Using the notation above, this follows from the fact that if p > q for the evidence x in a given case, then p ∗ s > q ∗ s , where s is the (positive) sanction. This means that preponderance of the evidence ensures that the expected sanction will be hi...
One easily takes for granted that a judge should establish the probability of guilt. The implicit notion behind this view is (in a Bayesian world) that the judge should up-date prior beliefs concerning “guilt” with the weight of the evidence in order to arrive at the (ex-post) probability of guilt. To express this mathematically, when A expresses t...
When social welfare includes only efficiency and not fairness, whether or not potential offenders are risk-averse does not affect the result that preponderance of the evidence maximizes deterrence. This can 12 For example for the issue whether or not to allow character-evidence in court. This question is analyzed by Schrag and Scotchmer [11], but n...
As when people are risk-averse, when it is costly to impose sanctions, this will tend to make the optimal standard stricter; the benefit of sanctioning in some state of nature must be balanced by the cost of so doing. For those states of nature that occur with only a slightly increased probability if the unlawful act is committed, the cost of sanct...
Even if people could be assumed to be risk-neutral and sanctions could be assumed to be simply transfers of wealth, there would remain an important set of circumstances for which it is misleading to think of preponderance of the evidence standard as an optimal standard of proof. This class of cases has not, in my view, been sufficiently noted in th...
It may be asked whether the preponderance of the evidence standard remains optimal when the possibility is opened up that the sanction could depend on the weight of the evidence. It was implicit in the arguments above that a sanction is either applied or not. It turns out that the answer is affirmative. In the above example when p > q, the sanction...
This article has put forward a simple incentive argument in favor of preponderance of the evidence: it maximizes deterrence since it maximizes the difference in expected utility between adhering to and violating the law. This establishes preponderance of the evidence standard as a benchmark in civil law. However, maximal deterrence is not the only ...
Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
May 1, 2006 · Preponderance of evidence stands in sharp contrast to the other main legal standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” found in criminal proceedings. It also differs from the intermediate standard of “clear and convincing evidence” used by US courts on some matters.
- Dominique Demougin, Claude Fluet
- 2006
This paper investigates the preponderance of the evidence standard. The aim is to make clear what preponderance of the evidence means and when it is optimal. By defining the circumstances under which it is optimal, it will also become clear when the standard is not appropriate.
People also ask
What is preponderance of evidence?
What is the difference between a reasonable doubt and a preponderance of evidence?
Do civil trials have a preponderance of evidence?
What is preponderance in a civil case?
Should the preponderance standard and exclusionary rules of evidence be rationalized?
Is a bare preponderance of evidence sufficient?
Rather than focusing on an absolute threshold, the Essay reconceptualizes the preponderance standard as a probability ratio and shows how doing so eliminates many of the classical problems associated with probabilistic theories of evidence.
