|
|
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?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
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. From the linked article: "You place the cup between your legs to steady it so you can add cream and sugar..." There's the problem right there. If you just drank the coffee like God intended there'd be no problem. But, no, you've got to pollute it with cream and sugar and stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
Right! You just place the third degree burning straight into your mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I remember there were a number of issues at the time that were not discussed much in the popular press. For example, the fact that McD's coffee was much hotter than other coffee. It makes sense that there would be a warning to me. There are other cases where I think reasonableness has nothing to do with it - Lawn Jarts, for example, where a guy kills his young child, because he didn't realize that hurling a 3/4 lb spike through the air had the potential to be dangerous. This is silly.
I was in a pub with some Mensans (not a member, just hang out with the occasionally). Somehow the topic came up of bagels in NYC. I had heard an article once (urban legend or fact I don't know) that at one point the most common reason for emergency room visits in NYC was cutting one's self while trying to split a bagel. One of them suggested that if that were true it would be appropriate to put warning messages on all bagel containers. It didn't bother me that one person would say something stupid (I do it all the time), but it was a little disconcerting when the rest of them began shaking their heads in a vigorous up and down motion.
I'll set aside for now my central complaint that so many unnecessary warnings creates a dangerous amount of clutter making it more difficult to see the warnings you really do need. The important connection to this thread is that we completely different views about what is reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
Can the accused request a trial by judges instead of a trial by jury if they want to? Or is that something reserved for specific situations?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
Morph: I read the article, and did learn I was wrong in thinking she was driving, but I still say that placing a flexible-sided container of a known very hot liquid between your legs can have an easily predictable result... I was bothered by this at first - to whom should this doubt be reasonable? To me? Precisely! I had heard an article once (urban legend or fact I don't know) that at one point the most common reason for emergency room visits in NYC was cutting one's self while trying to split a bagel. I bought myself a wooden bagel cutting frame because, when wielding a knife, I'm the only one who has to worry about getting cut! I once very stupidly was separating frozen hamburgers with a very sharp knife, from the opposite side to my hand, with the easily predictable result. I did not sue the knife manufacturer, nor the burger makers... Interestingly, I severed the nerve that supplies the underside of the finger above the cut. Within three months, it had grown back. Can the accused request a trial by judges instead of a trial by jury if they want to? Or is that something reserved for specific situations? I hope a lawyer or judge will weigh in on this one. I believe there are cases for which a jury trial is compulsory, and others for which it is optional. Certain actions on the part of the accused, such as accepting a plea bargain, would automatically be sent to a judge only.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557 |
Under US Federal law you can waive your right to a jury trial, but the prosecutor and the court both have to agree to it before you can have a bench trial instead. State laws vary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
Under US Federal law you can waive your right to a jury trial, but the prosecutor and the court both have to agree to it before you can have a bench trial instead. State laws vary. if you waive the jury and the prosecutor doesn't agree do you still have to be tried? What a loophole. 
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
