Federico Picinali (London School of Economics - Law School) has posted Justice In-Between. A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts (OUP 2022). Introduction (Federico Picinali, Justice In-Between. A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice, OUP, 2022)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Book Abstract: Justice In-Between is a study of intermediate criminal verdicts and of their justification. It challenges the widespread dogmatism favouring the binary verdict system, that is, a verdict system such as that adopted in England and Wales, characterised by a single standard of proof and two possible verdicts, acquittal and conviction. Justice In-Between studies historical and extant examples of intermediate criminal verdicts and engages with the debates that have accompanied them, including the popular argument that intermediate criminal verdicts are incompatible with the presumption of innocence. In doing so, the book offers an original account of the meaning and of the justification of the presumption. Relying on decision theory, Justice In-Between makes a case for intermediate criminal verdicts and shows that such decision-theoretic case is viable under both consequentialist and deontological theories of punishment. Indeed, the book argues that one cannot investigate the choice of the verdict system in isolation from the question of the justification for punishing.
Introduction Abstract: This chapter introduces the concept of an ‘intermediate criminal verdict’ and the problem of the justification of such a device. It argues against the widespread dogmatism favouring the binary verdict system, that is, a verdict system such as that adopted in England and Wales, characterised by a single standard of proof and two possible verdicts, acquittal and conviction. The interest in the philosophical question of the justification of intermediate criminal verdicts is presented in the chapter as stemming from the study of historical and extant examples of such verdicts, but also from the consideration that decision-making in everyday life is often non-binary, even when, similarly to criminal adjudication, it hinges on the probability of a particular fact. Examples of such non-binary decision-making are offered and briefly discussed. The chapter clarifies the notion of a ‘verdict’ adopted in the book, and provides an overview of the following chapters.
