Publication Date

9-2007

Journal

Virginia Law Review in Brief

Abstract

Legal scholarship has long treated substantive criminal law and evidence as two separate and distinct fields. The former largely concerns itself with evaluating substantive criminal law rules by reference to various animating theories-most prominently, those of deterrence and retributivism.' Scholars, students, and policymakers laud or condemn doctrines based on notions of "just deserts" or ideas about the incentives they create for those disposed to commit a crime. When it comes to the numerous evidentiary and other rules that determine the course of prosecutions and proof, however, the conversation is different. Here, questions of reliability, evidential worth, and accuracy in fact-finding dominate the debate. References to the deeper concerns of deterrence and retributivism, and the significance of various evidentiary and procedural rules toward the program of one or the other, are by and large absent.

Volume

93

First Page

189

Last Page

198

Publisher

University of Virginia School of Law

Disciplines

Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Evidence | Jurisprudence | Law

Download

Share

COinS