Reasonable doubt.

[Wobbly]

I always find it amazing when I hear what evidence is required for a jury to convict in the American Justice System. One of the major offenses is “Last seen with the victim”, I don’t know how many times I’ve heard about cases where this was the major piece of evidence. Another severe offender is “he got in a fight with the victim prior to”.

There is a severe problem with American juries convicting people on dubious circumstantial evidence, a recent case in my area, which resulted in conviction, was based on the testimony of the victim, and only the testimony of the victim. The victim was driving home with her boyfriend and some how or another got her cell phone shoved down her throat. She claimed that he did it to her for some reason or another, and he claimed she did it to herself for some reason or another. This was the totality of the case, keeping in mind that they had been seen arguing prior to the incident. The jury convicted the boyfriend based off these two pieces of evidence, if you can call them that.

Let me tell you something about reasonable doubt, outside fingerprint/DNA or video footage of the crime in action, it’s more likely than not that the accused should not be convicted. I don’t care how much circumstantial evidence there is, if the accused cannot be directly linked to the crime reasonable doubt can be established, and American Juries do not understand this.

I cannot fully blame American juries, however, as the whole justice system is based around conviction. It’s not a matter of justice being served, the prosecuting attorney’s career is dependent on conviction rates, which is completely absurd. Conviction rate should be irrelevant, as it is not a measure of fairness of jury decision or anything else except for attorney zeal.

There is also a bias against learned members of the jury, they are always the first cut, as they represent a threat to both sides, as they will not be persuaded by eloquence and straw men. So what we have left is a jury that is not equipped to critically think, let alone make a decision based on facts, this is borne out by convictions in America.

Another thing, those who are proved to be falsely imprisoned deserve substantial compensation for there time in the pin. On the order of millions per year, and I also propose that any jury members who convicts someone that is later proven to be innocent, have certain civic rights stripped from them, and be forced to face the person they wrongly imprisoned.

Here’s the psychology of an ignorant peasant jurist. “If I don’t convict this person and they are guilty, then they will commit more crimes, and I will be to blame, and it will ruin my life. Therefore I must convict if there is reasonable doubt that they are not innocent. My children must be protected from monsters.”

Here’s the psychology of a learned jurist. “If I convict this person, and they are innocent, then I have wronged them in a way that cannot be amended. It will also be purely my fault, as I gravely misinterpreted the evidence or was wrongly persuaded by the eloquence of the prosecutor. On the other hand, if I do not convict them, and they are guilty, this is a result of the justice system itself, and there guilt is irrelevant as the evidence was insufficient. There actual guilt or innocence is ultimately irrelevant, what matters is if the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Justice system was built around Juries erring on the side of innocents, the learned jurist understands this, the peasant jurist does not.

Back to the main point, what constitutes reasonable doubt?..Almost anything.

[Old_timer]

Back to the main point, what constitutes reasonable doubt?..Almost anything.

reasonable doubt is a legalistic term, now we seperate the term ‘reasonable’ and ‘doubt’.

doubt is easy to understand, just look it up in the dictionary. the interesting part is ‘reasonable’, what would constitute ‘reasonable’ doubt and not ‘unreasonable’ doubt.

In the legal sense, what is reasonable is what the judge or jury thinks. the judge is the reasonable man.

for instance, if i say i know something is beyond doubt, but the judge says it is not beyond reasoable doubt, basically means he as the reasonable man does not agree.

when we ask a conviction be placed ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ basically means ‘beyond doubt’ within reason. it just makes things sound better.

[Wobbly]

Take for example, the case in The Brothers Karamazov…Here we have an example of obvious reasonable doubt, but in the American jury system Mitya would be convicted of Parricide.

All the evidence is circumstantial, and none of it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.

Anyway, that’s my attempt to revive the thread…apparently no one cares that the population at large misudnerstands reasonable doubt.

[Carleas]

I haven’t read The Brothers Karamazov, but going back to your first post, is it really reasonable to wonder if maybe the woman shoved the phone down her own throat? Really?

Why should juries be penalized if they were convinced by the evidence? If the evidence seems to indicate that a person was guilty, how have they done wrong to be convinced? Yeah, it sucks that someone lost a significant amount of their life due to being wrongly imprisonned, but no one’s to blame. There are very severe limitations to how accurate a judgement procedure can be, and given those, our legal system is set up to be as fair as possible.
Perhaps it would be better to have professional jurors, who are intelligent and understand the law and the techniques that the lawyers will use one them. But I don’t think punishing a juror for an incorrect conviction would do anything, besides drastically reduce the number of convictions, even when the criminal is obviously guilty.

[aspacia]

Nihilistic,

You are kidding, right? The most reliable evidence is circumstantial evidence.

[Wobbly]

Carleas

I haven’t read The Brothers Karamazov, but going back to your first post, is it really reasonable to wonder if maybe the woman shoved the phone down her own throat? Really?

It’s not anymore reasonable to say that the boyfriend did it beyond a reasonable doubt. Why should you be biased toward the boyfriend doing it? Either way, the evidence is insufficient, and we simply have to assume what happened based on personal fancy. Hence, we don’t convict, and being “convinced” is a testament to people’s inability to think critically.

Why should juries be penalized if they were convinced by the evidence? If the evidence seems to indicate that a person was guilty, how have they done wrong to be convinced?

This is precisely the point, the evidence does not “seem” to indicate guilt, juries are just too dumb to realize what facts are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They think there personal conviction of being “convinced” is the standard they should use, when they are influenced by previous bias, lawyer eloquence, and the atmosphere of the case in general. If they are unable to disarm these mechanisms of incorrect judgment, then they are in no position to judge the case weather their judgments turns out to be right or wrong. They’re too rapped up with the actual guilt or innocents of the person, when what should be considered is if the evidence can prove the person did it or not.

[Carleas]

I don’t think that the standard of “reasonable doubt” was conceived of with Descartes in mind. It is pretty reasonable to believe that a woman did not shove a telephone down her own throat. No one says that’s impossible, but it doesn’t happen often and it would be pretty damned surprising if it did. Perhaps the reason used in court is “pragmatic reason”, i.e. reason enough to act on. It doesn’t have to be airtight, it just has to be good enough. And that’s really as good as we can do.

[Wobbly]

@Carleas

I don’t think that the standard of “reasonable doubt” was conceived of with Descartes in mind. It is pretty reasonable to believe that a woman did not shove a telephone down her own throat. No one says that’s impossible, but it doesn’t happen often and it would be pretty damned surprising if it did. Perhaps the reason used in court is “pragmatic reason”, i.e. reason enough to act on. It doesn’t have to be airtight, it just has to be good enough. And that’s really as good as we can do.

I don’t know how I can possibly respond to this, your argument is “what she says is more likely therefore he’s guilty”. What can I possibly say to this?

My next lawsuit:

I will position myself to be alone with a rich person and stab myself in the leg, then collect punitive damages with a “my word against his” case. It’s more likely that he stabbed me, so I’m sure to collect millions.

[Impenitent]

people have been scamming the “evil” rich like this ever since there have been courts…

slip and fall in a store or resturaunt, sue the “evil” rich capitalist owner’s insurance company… or for poisoning the food… or hot coffee burning someone’s lap… or finding a finger in the salad…

and happy liberal democRAT trial lawyers are happy to chase ambulances and sue and destroy honest businesses…

shakespeare was right.

-Imp

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Carleas

I don’t think that the standard of “reasonable doubt” was conceived of with Descartes in mind.

Not explicitly, no.

It is pretty reasonable to believe that a woman did not shove a telephone down her own throat.

So now we have ‘beyond pretty reasonable doubt’. I’ve heard of people (and seen people) do all sorts of crazy things, far more ridiculous than shoving a telephone down their own throat.

No one says that’s impossible, but it doesn’t happen often and it would be pretty damned surprising if it did.

Yet if there’s forensic evidence indicating this, it should trump any supposition about how people are likely to behave.

Perhaps the reason used in court is “pragmatic reason”, i.e. reason enough to act on. It doesn’t have to be airtight, it just has to be good enough. And that’s really as good as we can do.

Good enough for what? To convince a bunch of people, most of which have never studied reason, argument, law, evidence, logic.

That’s nowhere near ‘as good as we can do’.

[WillNZ]

This is answering the intial post, in light of the fact there are other replies, but in ignorance as to what their content might be.

‘Reasonable doubt’ must be premised in a presupposition of the defendant’s innocence. Failure to do so results in putting the burden of evidence on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff.

Presupposing that a person is guilty should be a huuuuge NONONONONO, and should be put to a jury to understand this point. Good point about the learned jury, that they have critical thinking skills.

I would have to sit down a little longer to discuss this fact very soon, as it’s not a mere philisophical babble that I would enjoy espousing as I sit here, it is actual a real serious issue.

Take care!

[jagermeister330]

First off, let’s agree that most people are too stupid to even know what “reasonable doubt” even means. The average jury member is an uneducated, blue-collar worker; any lawyer worth his salt wants such people, because they’re the most easily persuaded by rhetorical tricks.

A presumption of innocence is idealistically good, but anyone who thinks it actually exists is fooling themselves. Just take a look at the Duke lacrosse case, for an easy example.

[aspacia]

@jagermeister330

First off, let’s agree that most people are too stupid to even know what “reasonable doubt” even means. The average jury member is an uneducated, blue-collar worker; any lawyer worth his salt wants such people, because they’re the most easily persuaded by rhetorical tricks.

Bingo! The more well-educated are generally booted from a jury.

A presumption of innocence is idealistically good, but anyone who thinks it actually exists is fooling themselves. Just take a look at the Duke lacrosse case, for an easy example.

Talk about accusing without much circumstantial evidence. I am hoping Jackson and Sharpton have the balls to apologize, as Imus did, but I doubt they are men enough for that. Such hypocrisy.

[ariellowen]

@aspacia

In these cases, the prosecution will attempt to provide evidence of the circumstances from which the jury can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly. The prosecutor believes the fact can be proven by the evidence of the circumstances or “circumstantial” evidence.

Suppose that in a trial one of the parties is trying to provethat it was raining on a certain morning. A witness testifies thaton that morning she walked to the subway and as shewalked shesaw rain falling, she felt it striking her face, and she heard itsplashing on the sidewalk. That testimony of the witness’sperceptions would be direct evidence that it rained on thatmorning.

[WillNZ]

A presumption of innocence is idealistically good, but anyone who thinks it actually exists is fooling themselves. Just take a look at the Duke lacrosse case, for an easy example.

It’s a matter of taking sides, REALLY.

It is supposed to work like this

BEGINNING:
Defendant vs Plaintiff
Jury on this side Needs to convince jury that their case is
true

Whereas it seems, the plaintiff starts off with the jurys sympathy and the defendant must prove their innocence, which is the wrong way to go about it the presumption of innocence.

[RicDemian]

@Nihilistic

I always find it amazing when I hear what evidence is required for a jury to convict in the American Justice System. One of the major offenses is “Last seen with the victim”, I don’t know how many times I’ve heard about cases where this was the major piece of evidence. Another severe offender is “he got in a fight with the victim prior to”.

There is a severe problem with American juries convicting people on dubious circumstantial evidence, a recent case in my area, which resulted in conviction, was based on the testimony of the victim, and only the testimony of the victim. The victim was driving home with her boyfriend and some how or another got her cell phone shoved down her throat. She claimed that he did it to her for some reason or another, and he claimed she did it to herself for some reason or another. This was the totality of the case, keeping in mind that they had been seen arguing prior to the incident. The jury convicted the boyfriend based off these two pieces of evidence, if you can call them that.

Let me tell you something about reasonable doubt, outside fingerprint/DNA or video footage of the crime in action, it’s more likely than not that the accused should not be convicted. I don’t care how much circumstantial evidence there is, if the accused cannot be directly linked to the crime reasonable doubt can be established, and American Juries do not understand this.

I cannot fully blame American juries, however, as the whole justice system is based around conviction. It’s not a matter of justice being served, the prosecuting attorney’s career is dependent on conviction rates, which is completely absurd. Conviction rate should be irrelevant, as it is not a measure of fairness of jury decision or anything else except for attorney zeal.

There is also a bias against learned members of the jury, they are always the first cut, as they represent a threat to both sides, as they will not be persuaded by eloquence and straw men. So what we have left is a jury that is not equipped to critically think, let alone make a decision based on facts, this is borne out by convictions in America.

Another thing, those who are proved to be falsely imprisoned deserve substantial compensation for there time in the pin. On the order of millions per year, and I also propose that any jury members who convicts someone that is later proven to be innocent, have certain civic rights stripped from them, and be forced to face the person they wrongly imprisoned.

Here’s the psychology of an ignorant peasant jurist. “If I don’t convict this person and they are guilty, then they will commit more crimes, and I will be to blame, and it will ruin my life. Therefore I must convict if there is reasonable doubt that they are not innocent. My children must be protected from monsters.”

Here’s the psychology of a learned jurist. “If I convict this person, and they are innocent, then I have wronged them in a way that cannot be amended. It will also be purely my fault, as I gravely misinterpreted the evidence or was wrongly persuaded by the eloquence of the prosecutor. On the other hand, if I do not convict them, and they are guilty, this is a result of the justice system itself, and there guilt is irrelevant as the evidence was insufficient. There actual guilt or innocence is ultimately irrelevant, what matters is if the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Justice system was built around Juries erring on the side of innocents, the learned jurist understands this, the peasant jurist does not.

Back to the main point, what constitutes reasonable doubt?..Almost anything.

Nice post, but the central premise confounds two legal concepts. One is the standard of proof, which is that beyond a reasonable doubt. The other is the jury’s or trier of fact’s finding of the witness’s credibility, a finding of fact, which the jury decides one way or the other, more likely than not. The jury can dismiss , eg. an alibi, simply because they believe it’s not true. Guilt or innocence is distinct from findings of fact in the course of the trial. Or, they can dismiss a complainant’s allegation of sexual assault, because, for example, she has contradicted herself on time or location, without the defence raising any doubt about the substance of the allegation of forced sex.

Findings of fact may weigh in the evidence in establishing proof beyond or short of reasonable doubt. But they are not the same

[Witless_Wonder]

The main problem is, despite our best efforts, it is human nature for us to be confound by sensationalism.

Most juries have their mind made up before the trial even begins, thats just the way it is.

It also comes down to basic survival as well, someone spends time on a jury and the prosecution repeatedly makes the defendant out to be a horrible person without a shred of decency in their body, most jurors go into a mode of “Well I don’t want that person walking the streets” so regardless of what evidence that may or may not have been presented to them, they are already decided.

Its not right or fair, but it seems to be the growing trend.

[Kriswest]

Circumstantial evidence is not accurate. It is too easily twisted away from truth.

Dangerous stuff it is, it can ruin or harm an entire family because of the police and lawyers ability to twist lies into truths. So fuck circumstantial evidence. It creates too many errors.

[TheHeavyweightChampi (TheHeavyweightChampion)]

@Kriswest

Circumstantial evidence is not accurate. It is too easily twisted away from truth.

Dangerous stuff it is, it can ruin or harm an entire family because of the police and lawyers ability to twist lies into truths. So fuck circumstantial evidence. It creates too many errors.

ANY evidence, in irresponsible hands can lead to perverse results. Most evidence is circumstantial. Outside of, say a weapon or a confession, juries are asked to make a decision based on evidence that, when viewed together with the rest of the evidence, makes for a pattern of cdircumstances whose time, place and conjunction fits the charges too neatly to be coincidental. As long as there is a reasonable theory that accounts for the circumstances and is consistant with innoncence, the verdict shoult be not guilty.

[Kriswest]

There are very few responsible hands. The justice system is way too political. Convictions look real good for those that prosecute and arrest. Judges during times of elections can and dismiss evidence if it is anywhere near the line of inadmissable or may not have a real hard bearing on the case. They do this not just to the prosecution but, to the defense. When its done to the defense it can wipe out any possibility of getting reasonable doubt. judges get hinky when elections are aproaching their livelyhood depends upon politics, not honesty.

I don’t trust the justice system it has a real bad record as far as I can see.

Politics and religious beliefs have no place when justice is to be done. But, unfortunately for those arrested they are no longer innocent until proven guilty. They are guilty until they get lucky.