The standard of proof and crime prevention: A theoretical and empirical analysis.

This article critically examines the traditional criminal justice view that false convictions are morally far worse than false acquittals, arguing that this perspective neglects the preventive costs of acquitting guilty individuals. It explores how the standard of proof (SoP)—the evidentiary threshold required for conviction—affects crime prevention through deterrence, incapacitation, and public confidence in the justice system. Theoretical and empirical analyses suggest that lowering the SoP can increase crime prevention by enabling more guilty convictions and incarcerations, though the exact optimal level of the SoP remains uncertain due to limited data on its impact on conviction rates and prevention. The article also addresses common objections to considering prevention in setting the SoP, concluding that these objections lack sufficient justification. Ultimately, it proposes that crime prevention should be factored into determining the SoP, providing pro tanto reasons to adopt a weaker standard than traditionally favored, while acknowledging that other considerations and cost-benefit analyses are necessary before implementing such changes.