当前位置: X-MOL 学术The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Justifications, Excuses, and Affirmative Defenses
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization ( IF 1.324 ) Pub Date : 2020-01-25 , DOI: 10.1093/jleo/ewz023
Murat C Mungan 1
Affiliation  

Abstract
A defendant who admits to having committed an offense may nevertheless be acquitted if he can provide a legally cognizable justification or excuse for his actions by raising an affirmative defense. This article explains how affirmative defenses generate social benefits in the form of avoided unnecessary punishment. It then asks what kind of evidentiary standards must be used in order to balance these benefits against potential social costs arising from frivolous defense claims. It thereby provides an economic rationale for the uniformity across US jurisdictions in allocating the burden on the prosecution to prove the commission of the offense, as well as the variation across states in the standards of proof they use in determining the validity of affirmative defenses. The analysis also explains why mere assertions of undeterrability should not be considered as affirmative defenses. (JEL K00, K14, K40, K41, K42)


中文翻译:

理由,借口和肯定辩护

摘要
如果承认被告犯罪的被告人可以通过提出肯定的辩护为自己的行为提供法律上可理解的理由或借口,则可被无罪释放。本文解释了肯定性辩护如何以避免不必要的惩罚的形式产生社会利益。然后,它询问必须使用哪种证据标准,才能使这些收益与琐碎的辩护要求所带来的潜在社会成本之间取得平衡。因此,它为美国司法管辖区的统一性提供了经济原理,以分配起诉负担来证明犯罪的发生,以及各州在确定肯定抗辩的有效性时所使用的证据标准之间的差异。该分析还解释了为什么不应仅将坚不可摧的主张视为肯定的辩护。(JEL K00,K14,K40,K41,K42)
更新日期:2020-01-25
down
wechat
bug