Abstract
The core of the liberal democratic concept of criminal justice is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Justice does not rule out punishment; on the contrary it deals in ‘just deserts’. What the ideology of justice is opposed to is arbitrary punishment. The important criterion in dealing out ‘just deserts’ is that the recipient should have been proved guilty. The whim of kings, the barbarism of joust, the mysticism of magic should be replaced by a rational method of proof. The trial is where that process of proof is not only carried out but put on public display—where justice has not only to be done, but be seen to be done. The plausibility of the trial as a process of proving the accused guilty is one criterion by which the ideology of justice stands or falls.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1983 Doreen J. McBarnet
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McBarnet, D.J. (1983). Convincing the court: The Structure of Legal Proof. In: Conviction. Oxford Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05142-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05142-7_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-27897-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-05142-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)