Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/45398
DC FieldValue
dc.titleComparative observations on the burden of proof for criminal defences
dc.contributor.authorHo, H.L.
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-12T13:36:44Z
dc.date.available2013-10-12T13:36:44Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationHo, H.L. (2011). Comparative observations on the burden of proof for criminal defences. International Commentary on Evidence 9 (2) : -. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
dc.identifier.issn15544567
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/45398
dc.description.abstractThis 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.
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAffirmative defenses
dc.subjectBurden
dc.subjectCriminal trial
dc.subjectEvidence
dc.subjectLaw
dc.subjectProof
dc.typeReview
dc.contributor.departmentLAW
dc.description.sourcetitleInternational Commentary on Evidence
dc.description.volume9
dc.description.issue2
dc.description.page-
dc.identifier.isiutNOT_IN_WOS
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Page view(s)

302
checked on May 22, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.