优先、相称、逐步赔偿责任

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Giovanni Tuzet, F. Esposito
{"title":"优先、相称、逐步赔偿责任","authors":"Giovanni Tuzet, F. Esposito","doi":"10.1177/13657127231187057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After comparing the preponderance and proportional approaches to adjudication by considering some cases susceptible to being decided in either way, the work develops an in-depth discussion of Lavie's stepwise approach, and points out some major concerns that it poses, namely concerns about conceptual resources, methodology and matters of principle. As to conceptual resources, the work addresses and clarifies what Lavie means by ‘probability’ and ‘gradually increasing steps’; on methodology, it observes that reliance on Beckerian deterrence in this context is not convincing due to its reductionist motivational focus, which has also been challenged empirically by behavioural studies, and to its dismissal of the institutional function of trials; on matters of principle, finally, the work claims that the fundamental changes in the jural positions of claimant and defendant raise very high concerns in terms of the right to a fair trial.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"27 1","pages":"325 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni Tuzet, F. Esposito\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127231187057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After comparing the preponderance and proportional approaches to adjudication by considering some cases susceptible to being decided in either way, the work develops an in-depth discussion of Lavie's stepwise approach, and points out some major concerns that it poses, namely concerns about conceptual resources, methodology and matters of principle. As to conceptual resources, the work addresses and clarifies what Lavie means by ‘probability’ and ‘gradually increasing steps’; on methodology, it observes that reliance on Beckerian deterrence in this context is not convincing due to its reductionist motivational focus, which has also been challenged empirically by behavioural studies, and to its dismissal of the institutional function of trials; on matters of principle, finally, the work claims that the fundamental changes in the jural positions of claimant and defendant raise very high concerns in terms of the right to a fair trial.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"325 - 342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127231187057\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127231187057","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

通过考虑一些可能以任何一种方式作出裁决的案件,比较了优势和比例裁决方法之后,该工作深入讨论了Lavie的逐步方法,并指出了它提出的一些主要问题,即对概念资源、方法和原则问题的关注。在概念资源方面,本书阐述并澄清了Lavie所说的“概率”和“逐步增加的步骤”;在方法论上,它观察到在这种情况下对贝克威慑的依赖是不令人信服的,因为它的还原论动机焦点,这也受到了行为研究的经验挑战,以及它对试验制度功能的蔑视;最后,关于原则问题,该工作声称,索赔人和被告的法律地位的根本变化引起了对公平审判权利的高度关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability
After comparing the preponderance and proportional approaches to adjudication by considering some cases susceptible to being decided in either way, the work develops an in-depth discussion of Lavie's stepwise approach, and points out some major concerns that it poses, namely concerns about conceptual resources, methodology and matters of principle. As to conceptual resources, the work addresses and clarifies what Lavie means by ‘probability’ and ‘gradually increasing steps’; on methodology, it observes that reliance on Beckerian deterrence in this context is not convincing due to its reductionist motivational focus, which has also been challenged empirically by behavioural studies, and to its dismissal of the institutional function of trials; on matters of principle, finally, the work claims that the fundamental changes in the jural positions of claimant and defendant raise very high concerns in terms of the right to a fair trial.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信