Should we use the same standard of proof to adjudicate guilt for murder and petty theft? Why not tailor the standard of proof to the crime? These relatively neglected questions cut to the heart of central issues in the philosophy of law. This paper scrutinises whether we ought to use the same standard for all criminal cases, in contrast with a flexible approach that uses different standards for different crimes. I reject consequentialist arguments for a radically flexible standard of proof, instead defending a modestly flexible approach on non-consequentialist grounds. The system I defend is one on which we should impose a higher standard of proof for crimes that attract more severe punishments. This proposal, although apparently revisionary, accords with a plausible theory concerning the epistemology of legal judgments and the role they play in society.

中文翻译：

---

犯罪证据：固定还是灵活？

我们是否应该使用相同的证据标准来裁定谋杀罪和小偷小摸罪？为什么不针对犯罪制定证明标准呢？这些相对被忽视的问题切中了法哲学核心问题的核心。本文审视了我们是否应该对所有刑事案件使用相同的标准，与对不同的犯罪使用不同的标准的灵活方法形成对比。我反对结果论者对极端灵活的证明标准的争论，而是在非结果论者的基础上捍卫适度灵活的方法。我捍卫的制度是我们应该对招致更严厉惩罚的犯罪施加更高的证明标准。这个提议，虽然表面上是修正的，