Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A "burden of proof" is a party's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production (providing enough evidence on an issue so that the trier-of-fact decides it rather than in a peremptory ruling like a directed verdict) and the burden of persuasion (standard of proof such as preponderance of the evidence).
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
A legal burden is determined by substantive law, rests upon one party and never shifts. [5] The satisfaction of the evidential burden has sometimes been described as "shifting the burden of proof", a label which has been criticized because the burden placed on a defendant is not the legal burden of proof resting on the prosecution. [6]
Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to: Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof; Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl; Modus tollens, a logical proof; Proof of impossibility, mathematics; Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. [1]
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. Hitchens used this phrase specifically in the context of refuting religious belief.
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury).
A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof onto the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this particular provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in either a criminal offence or tort claim.