Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparative observations on the burden of proof for criminal defences||Authors:||Ho, H.L.||Keywords:||Affirmative defenses
|Issue Date:||2011||Citation:||Ho, H.L. (2011). Comparative observations on the burden of proof for criminal defences. International Commentary on Evidence 9 (2) : -. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.||Abstract:||This essay analyses the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the allocation of the burden of proof in relation to criminal defences. The Court seems generally comfortable about letting the accused carry the persuasive burden of proving excuses and justifications. It is seemingly different in those other common law countries where the so-called 'golden thread' proclaimed by the House of Lords in Woolmington v DPP holds sway, and where it is accepted as a general rule that the prosecution must disprove beyond reasonable doubt any defence that has been put in issue. This essay explores and tries to explain this difference. The divergence is explicable as a matter of legal history, but at the bottom of it are arguably a conceptual dispute on the offence-defence distinction and competing visions of politics that bear on the theory of the criminal trial. © 2012 De Gruyter. All rights reserved.||Source Title:||International Commentary on Evidence||URI:||http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/45398||ISSN:||15544567|
|Appears in Collections:||Staff Publications|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
checked on Jun 14, 2019
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.