Read more
Justice In-Between is a study of intermediate criminal verdicts, and advances a novel justification of these controversial devices with the aim to produce a consensus amongst scholars subscribing to different theories of punishment.
List of contents
- Introduction
- 1: Intermediate Verdicts Are Not a Fanciful Construct
- 2: The Presumption of Innocence: A Decisive Objection to Intermediate Verdicts?
- 3: Acquittal vs Conviction: We Can All Be Expected-Value Maximisers in this Choice
- 4: The Decision-theoretic Case for Intermediate Criminal Verdicts
- 5: A Battery of Objections
- 6: Conclusion
About the author
Federico Picinali is an Associate Professor at LSE Law School. He graduated in law from the University of Milan. He has an LLM from Yale Law School and a PhD in law from the University of Trento. He teaches and researches in criminal law and evidence law, with a particular interest in theoretical approaches to these subjects. He has written on the criminal standard of proof, on inferential reasoning in legal fact-finding, on statistical evidence, on improperly obtained evidence, on criminal intention and on self-defence, among other topics. His work appeared in several journals, including the Modern Law Review, Law & Philosophy, the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Criminal Law & Philosophy, the International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Jurisprudence, and Law, Probability & Risk.
Summary
Justice In-Between is a study of intermediate criminal verdicts, and advances a novel justification of these controversial devices with the aim to produce a consensus amongst scholars subscribing to different theories of punishment.
Additional text
The final verdict on this book? (...) Evidence law and penal theorists will be the most receptive, and those already working within the decision-theoretic paradigm will perhaps extract the greatest value from this systematic, rigorous and unconventional application.
