Nikita Sharma, BA. LLB, VSLLS, VIPS
ABSTRACT
This article analyzes the probabilistic underpinnings of the burden of proof theory. The article studies that this doctrine is best understood as instructing fact finders today to determine which parties’ stories or experiences make more sense in terms of coherence, consilience, and evidential coverage. By applying this method the fore finders, all the judges, as well as the theorists, will try to find or rather establish the truth while securing the appropriate allocations of the risk of possible error. We will also discuss that the relative plausibility method is operationally superior to fact-finding and how this is connected to people’s natural reasoning, common sense and mathematical probabilities.
Keywords: onus probandi, natural reasoning, evidential coverage
Comentarios