Should a court convict a defendant for unspecified offenses if there is no reasonable doubt that he committed an offence, even though no particular offence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? Suppose a defendant is charged with two unrelated offenses, for example, pick-pocketing and rape, allegedly committed at different times and places. The probability that he committed each one of the offenses is .9. Assume that the minimum threshold required for conviction is .95. Under prevailing evidence law, the defendant would be acquitted of both charges since no offense can be specifically attributed to him. However, a simple calculation of the probability that the defendant committed at least one offense amounts to .99. Consequently, it seems that convicting him for one offense without specifying what this offense is and punishing him with the sanction designed for the least severe offense would be just and efficient. We call the principle that requires such an aggregation the "Aggregate Probabilities Principle" (APP).
This Article establishes that under certain conditions, deterrence, efficient law enforcement, and minimization of adjudication errors would be better achieved were courts to apply such an APP. The Article also addresses the most powerful possible objections to this method and suggests that the aggregation principle be adopted only under strict conditions that preclude its potential abuse by the prosecution. In addition, the Article shows that sometimes aggregating probabilities will yield less, rather than more, convictions. If the APP is adopted, the presumption of innocence currently applied with regard to the offense will be replaced by a presumption of innocence applied to the accused.
Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Evidence | Injury and Tort Law | Law and Economics | Law Enforcement and Corrections | Litigation | Public Law and Legal Theory | RICO
Date of this Version
Alon Harel and Ariel Porat, "Criminal Responsibility for Unspecified Offenses" (March 2009). Tel Aviv University Law Faculty Papers. Working Paper 103.
Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, Injury and Tort Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Litigation Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, RICO Commons