9
votes
Is reasonable doubt that of >=9.1% probability?
Reasonable doubt is not a quantifiable concept. It is an error in law to instruct a jury to consider it in the manner you describe.
Reasonable doubt is not amenable to mathematical calculation or even ...
- 44k
8
votes
Accepted
Is reasonable doubt that of >=9.1% probability?
I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that defines it numerically.
england-and-wales
The guidance is that the jury is directed like this:
The prosecution must prove that D is guilty. D does not have to ...
- 15k
5
votes
Is drunk driving a malum prohibitum or malum in se?
Drunk driving considered malum prohibitum. The place that the line is drawn for the offense is arbitrary and it doesn't inherently harm another person.
In contrast, the closely related driving offense ...
- 195k
2
votes
What is the principle of “finders keepers until the owner claims” called?
That "common law principle" applies in at least one civil law country. Meet one of the French civil code’s greatest hits, article 2276:
En fait de meubles, la possession vaut titre.
...
- 1,469
1
vote
Why - and when - are some torts actionable per se (vs needing to demonstrate actual damages)?
“The harm is inherent in the wrong”
This nice phrase was used by the Australian Law Reform Council in their report on a proposed new tort of Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era.
They go on ...
- 198k
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible