Editors' Review and Introduction: Models of Rational Proof in Criminal Law.

Decisions concerning proof of facts in criminal law must be rational because of what is at stake, but the decision-making process must also be cognitively feasible because of cognitive limitations, and it must obey the relevant legal-procedural constraints. In this topic three approaches to rational reasoning about evidence in criminal law are compared in light of these demands: arguments, probabilities, and scenarios. This is done in six case studies in which different authors analyze a manslaughter case from different theoretical perspectives, plus four commentaries on these case studies. The aim of this topic is to obtain more insight into how the different approaches can be applied in a legal context. This will advance the discussion on rational reasoning about evidence in law and will contribute more widely to cognitive science on a number of topics, including the value of probabilistic accounts of cognition and the problem of dealing with cognitive biases in reasoning under uncertainty in practical contexts.

A Scenario Approach to the Simonshaven Case.

In this paper, we present a scenario approach and apply it to the Simonshaven case. We offer an outline in which we spell out the core notions of the scenario approach. Next, we give a summing up of criteria to assess and compare scenarios. We use examples of the Simonshaven case to illustrate how the scenario-approach works. The last section contains a discussion of the main strengths and weaknesses of the scenario approach and a brief comparison with argumentation-based and probabilistic approaches.

Evaluating the Quality of the Deliberation in Moral Case Deliberations: A Coding Scheme.

Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) is an up and coming form of ethics support wherein clinical professionals deliberate about moral questions they face in their work. So far, it has been unclear what quality of deliberation in MCD is entailed and how to evaluate this quality. This article proposes a coding scheme that fits the theoretical background of MCD and allows researchers to evaluate the quality of the deliberation in MCDs. We consider deliberation in MCD to be of good quality when participants enrich their own understanding of a case by being exposed to the viewpoints of others. In order to have such an enriching effect, the deliberation in an MCD ought to involve different kinds of arguments from the perspectives of different stakeholders and in favour of different resolutions to the case; and the process of deliberation ought to be critical but constructive.