In their book De slapende rechter (The sleeping judge) Dutch legal psychologists W.A. Wagenaar, H. Israëls and P.J. van Koppen claim that Dutch judges wrongfully convict suspects in certain cases because these judges generally fail to understand the way hypothetical reasoning works in relation to empirical evidence. In this article it is argued that Wagenaar, Israëls and Van Koppen are basically right in their claim that reasoning on evidence in criminal cases should be a form of hypothetical reasoning. However, they fail to apply this form of reasoning on their own analysis of Dutch criminal cases and the causes of wrongful convictions. Therefore, their conclusion that a form of revision of convictions outside of the criminal law system should be introduced does not meet their own methodological standards.
|Number of pages||17|
|Journal||Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy|
|Publication status||Published - 2010|