The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Standard of Proof
Abstract
The standard of proof may be understood, first, as referring to the caution that must be exercised in making positive findings. A variant interpretation of the standard is proposed. The evidence must justify a strong enough belief in the truth of the disputed allegation where what is strong enough depends on the seriousness of the allegation and the consequences of accepting it as true. The need for caution is ethically motivated by concern and respect for the person to whom the finding is adverse. Secondly, the standard of proof is also about the distribution of caution. The civil standard instructs the fact-finder to be impartial whereas the criminal standard requires her to take a protective attitude towards the accused; the former is grounded in the principle of equality, and the latter in the demand for accountability by the state for the harm it seeks to inflict on citizens.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Ho, H. L.
- Corresponding author
- Ho, H L
- Venue
- A Philosophy of Evidence Law
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2008-03-06
- Pages
- 173-230
- OpenAlex
- W2505844542
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 4.77
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- standard of proof, burden of proof, principle of equality, government accountability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standard of Proof. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228300.003.0004
- The paper
- Ho, H. L. (2008). Standard of Proof. A Philosophy of Evidence Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199228300.003.0004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
