Does assigning proof burdens allow us to conclude anything reasonable?

The most well known “proof burden” is the burden of the prosecutor- but his burden is not tied to the reasonableness of his case. There is a reason to give the prosecutor the burden, but this reason is not tied to the facts or the reasonableness of his case. If this is the model for what a proof burden is, then we cannot get from “In the dispute between p and ~p, p has the proof burden” to “prior to argument (or if the argument is deadlocked), ~p is reasonable to accept”. This would be like saying “prior to the trial, or before we know anything about the case, it is reasonable to believe the defendant”- which is clearly not true. If I walk in on a courtroom procedure, or if it is my first minute on the jury, I don’t think that the defendant’s case is more reasonable, even though I recognize that that he does not have the burden of proof.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: