Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Workshop on Bradley and Gordon Smith’s “Must Jurors Know the Stakes of Conviction?
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Workshop on Bradley and Gordon Smith’s “Must Jurors Know the Stakes of Conviction?
Colin Bradley & Eleanor Gordon-Smith, Must Jurors Know the Stakes of Conviction? Sentencing, Encroachment, and Legal Proof.
Solum’s Download of the Week for May 31, 2025. Available on SSRN.
This is a synthetic academic workshop generated using enTalkenator (a variation of the Workshop template, using the Google Gemini 2.5 Pro).
Abstract: “A recent view in legal epistemology holds that since knowledge is the standard for proof of criminal guilt, and since there is pragmatic encroachment on knowledge, contrary to current trial practice juries should be told the sentence a defendant would receive if convicted. We argue against this view. First, pragmatic encroachment on legal proof would produce distorted and unjust trial practice. Second, even granting pragmatic encroachment on legal proof would not of itself undermine the basic justification for withholding sentencing evidence from juries. We close on the false allure of epistemology-first arguments for legal reform.”
View all episodes
By Christian TurnerColin Bradley & Eleanor Gordon-Smith, Must Jurors Know the Stakes of Conviction? Sentencing, Encroachment, and Legal Proof.
Solum’s Download of the Week for May 31, 2025. Available on SSRN.
This is a synthetic academic workshop generated using enTalkenator (a variation of the Workshop template, using the Google Gemini 2.5 Pro).
Abstract: “A recent view in legal epistemology holds that since knowledge is the standard for proof of criminal guilt, and since there is pragmatic encroachment on knowledge, contrary to current trial practice juries should be told the sentence a defendant would receive if convicted. We argue against this view. First, pragmatic encroachment on legal proof would produce distorted and unjust trial practice. Second, even granting pragmatic encroachment on legal proof would not of itself undermine the basic justification for withholding sentencing evidence from juries. We close on the false allure of epistemology-first arguments for legal reform.”