The evolution of the understanding of evidence-based proof and decision processes in the law, especially criminal law, and standards of proof in this area, has a long-standing and controversial history. Competing accounts cause the legal scholarship to engage in critical and thoughtful exchanges. Some of the divergent views reflect different methodological perspectives similarly recognized in other fields, such as applied psychology and economy, and the broader interdisciplinary research fields of judgment and decision-making, system analysis and decision science. One such methodological perspective asserts that accounts of juridical proof should provide a description and explanation of how the legal system actually works as a whole. Other—more mathematical and analytical accounts—concentrate on how, ideally, legal decision-making under uncertainty ought to be made in order be considered sensible. This paper focuses on the relative plausibility (RP) account advocated by Professors Allen and Pardo as an example of the former perspective. Its logical structure and argumentative implications are analysed using elements of decision theory, which is the prime representative of the latter, more mathematical approach to legal proof. Using formal diagrammatic schemes to depict the structural relationships between the core elements of the two accounts, it is demonstrated in what sense they can be considered logically related and congruent. The demonstration shows that the principal disagreements among the proponents of the two examined theories derive from differences in (1) the criteria used to judge the adequacy of competing accounts of legal decision-making, and (2) the level of formalization of the bases of decisions in each candidate account. This structural analysis supports the view that adherence to one or the other of the examined perspectives does not imply a contradiction, but reflects the coverage of different aspects of the same overall decision architecture. Using decision-theoretic notions, our analyses also provide a way to explain RP decisions through an explicit criterion, thus providing a reply to the recurrent critique that RP theory lacks specific means to justify its decisional framework.

法律，尤其是刑法中对循证证明和决策程序的理解以及该领域的证明标准的演变，有着悠久而有争议的历史。竞争账户导致法律奖学金进行批判性和深思熟虑的交流。一些不同的观点反映了其他领域同样公认的不同方法论观点，例如应用心理学和经济学，以及更广泛的跨学科研究领域，如判断和决策、系统分析和决策科学。一种这样的方法论观点断言，司法证明的说明应该提供对法律制度作为一个整体如何实际运作的描述和解释。其他——更数学和分析性的账户——专注于理想情况下如何，应该在不确定的情况下做出法律决策，才能被认为是明智的。本文重点讨论 Allen 和 Pardo 教授提倡的相对合理性 (RP) 解释，作为前一种观点的一个例子。它的逻辑结构和论证含义使用决策理论的要素进行分析，决策理论是后者的主要代表，是法律证明的更多数学方法。使用正式的图表方案来描述两个账户的核心元素之间的结构关系，证明在什么意义上它们可以被认为是逻辑相关和一致的。论证表明，两种被检验理论的支持者之间的主要分歧源于以下方面的差异：（1）用于判断竞争性法律决策说明是否充分的标准，(2) 每个候选账户中决策基础的正式化程度。这种结构分析支持这样一种观点，即坚持一个或另一个被审查的观点并不意味着矛盾，而是反映了同一整体决策架构的不同方面的覆盖范围。使用决策理论概念，我们的分析还提供了一种通过明确标准来解释 RP 决策的方法，从而对反复出现的关于 RP 理论缺乏证明其决策框架合理性的具体手段的批评提供了答复。但反映了同一整体决策架构的不同方面的覆盖范围。使用决策理论概念，我们的分析还提供了一种通过明确标准来解释 RP 决策的方法，从而对反复出现的关于 RP 理论缺乏证明其决策框架合理性的具体手段的批评提供了答复。但反映了同一整体决策架构的不同方面的覆盖范围。使用决策理论概念，我们的分析还提供了一种通过明确标准来解释 RP 决策的方法，从而对反复出现的关于 RP 理论缺乏证明其决策框架合理性的具体手段的批评提供了答复。