According to a common conception of legal proof, satisfying a legal burden requires establishing a claim to a numerical threshold. Beyond reasonable doubt, for example, is often glossed as 90% or 95% likelihood given the evidence. Preponderance of evidence is interpreted as meaning at least 50% likelihood given the evidence. In light of problems with the common conception, I propose a new ‘relevant alternatives’ framework for legal standards of proof. Relevant alternative accounts of knowledge state that a person knows a proposition when their evidence rules out all relevant error possibilities. I adapt this framework to model three legal standards of proof—the preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt standards. I describe virtues of this framework. I argue that, by eschewing numerical thresholds, the relevant alternatives framework avoids problems inherent to rival models. I conclude by articulating aspects of legal normativity and practice illuminated by the relevant alternatives framework.

中文翻译：

---

合理与相关：法律证明标准

根据法律证明的一个常见概念，满足法律责任需要建立一个数字阈值的索赔。例如，根据证据，排除合理怀疑通常被认为是 90% 或 95% 的可能性。优势证据被解释为给定证据的可能性至少为 50%。鉴于共同概念存在的问题，我提出了一个新的“相关替代方案”的法律证明标准框架。相关的替代知识说明表明，当一个人的证据排除了所有相关错误的可能性时，他们就知道一个命题。我调整了这个框架来模拟三个法律证明标准——优势证据、明确和令人信服的证据以及排除合理怀疑的标准。我描述了这个框架的优点。我认为，通过避开数字阈值，相关的替代框架避免了竞争模型固有的问题。最后，我阐明了相关替代框架所阐明的法律规范性和实践的各个方面。