Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

'Hoist with his own petard'? Guilty lies and ironic inferences in criminal proof

  • David Acton Hamer

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The criminal trial is adversarial. The prosecution necessarily advances a different position to the defendant. The defendant may for example say, 'I was at home with my wife at the time the robbery was committed.' At a minimum, the prosecution will argue that this statement is a lie. The prosecution may go further, claiming that the lie discredits other of the defendant's statements – the 'credibility lie' argument. Or the prosecution may go further still and argue that the lie was told in order to conceal the defendant's guilt. The defendant's 'guilty lie' is proof of their guilt. This article is concerned with the logical limits of the guilty-lie inference.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)377-413
    JournalCurrent Legal Problems
    Volume54
    Publication statusPublished - 2001

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
      SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

    Keywords

    • Criminal Law and Procedure

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of ''Hoist with his own petard'? Guilty lies and ironic inferences in criminal proof'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this