|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
In criminal cases in my state, a defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecutor can prove his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the term "reasonable doubt" is not defined, presumably being left to the discretion of the individual jurors.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
Having 12 people (normally), all with their own versions of "reasonable doubt", creates an automatic "filter", if you will, that tends toward the center. They all need to work towards agreement, and that does eventually happen in most cases. I suspect that hung juries are those that contain two or more stubborn people with extreme opposite versions of "reasonable", which would tend to be rare. Attorneys try very, very hard to screen out such persons. Group discretion is the whole idea behind our jury system, and the specific reason for not having one judge deciding. It works fairly well, and way better than many other systems. Since perfection does not exist, we have to use something, given the litigious nature of our citizens. It seems to me that it's eased off on the last few years, especially the frivolous lawsuits. I think people just got sick of awarding money to those who apparently had no expectation of responsibility for their actions (the McDonald's hot coffee woman comes to mind...). Besides that, companies have worked overtime in CYA mode on their product labeling. I bought a curling iron which stated, and I am not making this up, "Do not use while asleep".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
I bought a curling iron which stated, and I am not making this up, "Do not use while asleep". My favourite is a heat gun I bought for paint stripping that operates at several hundred degrees celsius, with the warning in the instructions "do not use as a hair dryer." The question of juries is a perennial favourite for debate in any first year law class. Whilst the jury system is on the whole a good one, in particular cases it is not necessarily any better than other forms of trial such as the European inquisatorial system or trial by the tribal elders for that matter. One of the problems with jury trial is that is part of our adversarial system, in which it is winning or losing that is the primary goal of defense or prosecution attorneys, and not actually getting at the truth of a matter. Trial by a panel of judges in some cases may be fairer and more likely to return a verdict based on the actual law, since judges are trained in law and are on average likely to be more objective and dispassionate. Jury trials are also very expensive, and for that reason it is quite appropriate to have magistrates decide lesser charges. In some jurisdictions for some charges or civil cases, defendants are given the choice of jury or judge trials.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
Since there are so many people who have for almost everything
'unreasonable doubt ' I always liked the term 'reasonable doubt '.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
Since there are so many people who have for almost everything
'unreasonable doubt ' I always liked the term : 'reasonable doubt '. ...and tobacco companies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
A smoke screen? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956 |
In criminal cases in my state, a defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecutor can prove his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the term "reasonable doubt" is not defined, presumably being left to the discretion of the individual jurors. I found this at The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
I reckon you're right. The line between common sense and moral certainty seems rather vague. Any doubt whatsoever in ones mind, even doubting yourself, can be reasonable doubt, can't it? Seems reasonable. I think?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 155
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 155 |
Facts and issues pertaining to the Leibeck lawsuit against McDonald's got distorted or omitted in much of the popular and press discussion of the case, and corporate and political interests stoked and exploited public outrage, as written about here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
"However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."
Before our case, I asked the meaning, because the lawyers kept throwing around the term to the prospective jurors, including myself, as if everyone knew what it meant. When I asked the lawyers, the judge interrupted and answered (which is good, but I ascertained very quickly that, as one would hope, he had a better understanding of the law than the lawyers, or at least he was better able to convey it). He said our state specifically does not define the term, then talked around it a bit and said it specifically does not mean "absolute certainty." So that much is agreeable. I was bothered by this at first - to whom should this doubt be reasonable? To me?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
I recently read A Trial by Jury, by D. Graham Burnett (which I can't totally recommend). I found this to be revealing:
The judge explained the standard of proof. The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Did we hear that? This did not mean mathematical certainty, but simply beyond the doubt of a reasonable person. "Is there anyone here," the judge continued, "who would hold the state to an unreasonable standard?"
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,351
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
