International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):253-264 (2007)
AbstractThe Corpus Delicti Rule prohibits the introduction of the defendant’s confession to a crime to count as evidence against the defendant in the absence of independent evidence of the crime in question. The common law rule, designed to protect the defendant who confesses to the commission of a fictitious crime, has fallen out of favor with federal courts and a number of state courts. Moreover, the rule has its academic detractors. This essay is an attempt to investigate the value of the rule, the academic criticisms of the rule and to analyze the federal substitute for the rule. If the analysis is not completely astray, the rule serves a most admirable social purpose. The academic arguments are not so telling as to justify jettisoning the rule. Finally, the federal rule is argued to be either completelyinadequate a protection or an adequate protection only to the extent that the federal substitute is coextensive with the rule it is designed to replace, namely, the original Corpus Delicti Rule
Similar books and articles
Lüders's rule as a description of individual state transformations.Sergio Martinez - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (3):359-376.
Notes on "epistemology of a rule-based expert system".William J. Clancey - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence 59 (1-2):191-204.
The Exception Proves the Rule.Richard Holton - 2010 - Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (4):369-388.
A government of laws and not men: Prohibiting non-precedential opinions by statute or procedural rule.Amy E. Sloan - unknown
Do the right thing! Rule finitism, rule scepticism and rule following.Wes Sharrock & Graham Button - 1999 - Human Studies 22 (2-4):193-210.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads