Abstract

There are several approaches to the way in which standards of proof in law should be understood. In the central article in this issue, Rodrigo Coloma suggests that they should be conceived either as thresholds either as prototypes. He also offers a taxonomy of the different uses of standards of proof, which transcends their function as error distributors. In their comments on the paper, Raymundo Gama and Claudio Agüero clarify and challenge this way of understanding standards of proof. Some of their criticisms are right on target, but many others are directed more at Coloma’s theoretical presuppositions than at his substantial contributions. In this paper I offer a wider context to evaluate their disagreements.