In this response to my five critics, I note the strength of the arguments in favour of treating the presumption of innocence as a narrow, legal presumption that operates only within the criminal process; but I then try to make clearer my reasons for talking of different presumptions of innocence (moral, rather than legal, presumptions) outside the criminal process, in other contexts in which issues of criminal guilt or innocence arise – presumptions that guide or are expressed in the conduct of the state’s officials towards its citizens, and of citizens towards each other. Once we look at these other contexts in which criminal guilt and innocence (of past and future crimes) are at stake, we can see the importance of civic trust as a practical attitude that citizens owe to each other; and the fruitfulness of examining the various normative roles that citizens may have to play in relation to the criminal law. |
Article |
|
Journal | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2013 |
Authors | Antony Duff |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Editorial |
|
Journal | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2013 |
Authors | Anne Ruth Mackor and Vincent Geeraets |
AbstractAuthor's information |
|
Article |
|
Journal | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2013 |
Keywords | pre-trial detention practice, presumption of guilt, incapacitation, presumption of innocence |
Authors | Lonneke Stevens |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The presumption of innocence (PoI) is considered to be an important principle for regulating pre-trial detention. The idea is that pre-trial detention should be a last resort. However, pre-trial detention practice demonstrates that pre-trial detention does not function on the basis of a presumption of innocence but rather from a presumption of guilt and dangerousness. It must be concluded that, with regard to pre-trial detention, the PoI has a rather limited normative effect. |
Article |
|
Journal | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2013 |
Keywords | rules, principles, fairness, PoI |
Authors | Magnus Ulväng |
AbstractAuthor's information |
In my response to Duff I focus mainly on the following two issues. Firstly, I examine what kind of a norm the presumption of innocence (PoI) really is and how it ontologically differs from other types of rules, principles, rationales, etc. My tentative conclusion is that a PoI does not suffice the requirement of being a dogmatic rule and, thus, has less weight than what Duff perhaps assumes. |
Article |
|
Journal | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2013 |
Authors | Antony Duff |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This paper explores the roles that the presumption of innocence (PoI) can play beyond the criminal trial, in other dealings that citizens may have with the criminal law and its officials. It grounds the PoI in a wider notion of the civic trust that citizens owe each other, and that the state owes its citizens: by attending to the roles that citizens may find themselves playing in relation to the criminal law (such roles as suspect, defendant, convicted offender and ‘ex-offender’), we can see both how a PoI protects us, beyond the confines of the trial, against various kinds of coercion, and how that PoI is modified or qualified as we acquire certain roles. To develop and illustrate this argument, I pay particular attention to the roles of defendant (both during the trial and while awaiting trial) and of ‘ex-offender,’ and to the duties that such roles bring with them. |
Article |
|
Journal | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2013 |
Keywords | jurisprudence, legal positivism, Hans Kelsen, pure theory of law |
Authors | Christoph Kletzer |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The paper argues that we miss the point and strength of Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law if we take it to drive a middle way between reductionism and moralism. Rather conversely, the Pure Theory is a radical theory. It tries to overcome the opposition between reductionism and moralism by making clear that both opponents rest on the same ill-conceived convictions about legal validity. Both take it that the law cannot be normative by itself. In contrast, the Pure Theory tries to find a new approach to the understanding of law that takes seriously the constitutive functions of law. It tries to understand the validity of law as resting in law itself. As such it is an attempt to find a philosophically satisfactory formulation of what can be called absolute positivism. |