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.

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.

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.