that a party must achieve to prove facts to the satisfaction of a court in order
to win their case.
Standards
In civil matters this is generally proof on the balance of probability, which is
51%. In criminal cases the standard of proof is not expressed as a precise
percentage, just as a verbal formula, “beyond reasonable doubt”. However,
the same reasoning process applies, even in the absence of an agreed figure to
measure the standard. In later discussion a figure of 99% is suggested as a
plausible numerical representation of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
There are two styles of reasoning involved in these
standards. First, to the
extent that a minimum standard of proof to a degree of 51% is required for
both civil and criminal cases the reasoning is purely abductive. Second, to the
extent that criminal standard requires something in excess of 51% for criminal
cases (99% on our take) the reasoning is implementing the precautionary
principle.
Comparison
Making this comparison is obviously a simple task. The court measures the
determined probability that the initiating party’s version of the facts is true
against the probability required by the standard of proof. If the party has
achieved the required standard they have, in legal terms, proved their case.
Consequently, the court then resolves the dispute of facts in favour of that
party.
This method of proving facts by requiring a standard of proof as distinct from
absolute proof involves abductive reasoning. In the absence of certain
knowledge, abductive reasoning seeks plausible knowledge based on the
available evidence.
 |
 |
 |