When can citizens doubt criminal convictions?

There is now a considerable body of analytic work examining the norms of criminal conviction at trial, integrating contemporary legal theory, political philosophy and epistemology to consider when a judge or jury should doubt the guilt of an accused. This paper takes up a neglected adjacent issue: when can citizens doubt a conviction returned by a criminal court? This question, aside from being independently important for a general theory of criminal justice, also bears on the perceived legitimacy of punishment and the relationship between individual citizens and state power. I provide an account of the intellectual and moral norms governing such dissent and explain their sensitivity to contingent facts about the jurisdiction in question. One upshot is that even among well-functioning criminal justice systems, the norms for public dissent can vary considerably—and depend on the ‘nuts and bolts’ of criminal process often hidden from public view. Ultimately, few states have sufficiently effective criminal processes to undergird any moral prohibition on dissent against conviction, so long as the intellectual hurdle of responsible inquiry has been cleared.