![]() Who could believe that the Scopes trial "proved" evolution to everyone's satisfaction? Or that Brown v. The Perry Mason TV series resonated so deeply within us because it expressed our collective wish that "the truth always comes out." But anyone who wants to hold on to that dream should stick to Hollywood garbage and avoid reading trial transcripts.Īny jury analyst knows that facts are cut to fit the cloth of beliefs. Jailhouse snitches can custom–tailor their testimony to serve their own interests. Sociopaths can make the polygraph needles dance to their tune. Lab analysis can be fatally flawed, which is why capital punishment is inherently wrong. And "beyond any doubt" is as much a logical impossibility as the term "foolproof."Ĭonfessions may be the product of a disordered mind, or of outright torture. ![]() "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" ignores the penumbra of that shadow. "eyond any doubt" is as much a logical impossibility as the term "foolproof." The horrific consequences of allowing those with an agenda to exercise the power of "interpretation" are beyond dispute. That is, "reasonable doubt" will mean whatever an individual chooses it to mean, as open to interpretation as the Bible or the Koran. Unless we separately analyze "reasonable" and "doubt" in the context of a criminal trial, the term will degenerate to cliché status: endlessly repeated, but devoid of any actual meaning. To ensure a uniform standard for "reasonable doubt," we must subject the term itself to dispassionate dissection. If we refuse to grant such god–like power to others, we have to do the work ourselves. When we anoint such an interpreter, we walk a smoother path. Therefore, whoever has the power to define which acts (or individuals) are "evil" also has the power to control our conduct. A simple illustration will suffice: we all agree that "evil" is a bad thing. History has taught that if we allow interpretations to control reality, truth is the first victim of the chaos to follow. The interpretation of "reasonable doubt" is as unstable (and as potentially explosive) as nitroglycerin in a cocktail shaker. Jurors, charged with the responsibility of making life–and–death decisions, are told to apply this legalese–larded "standard." But not only is this "standard" purely adjectival, movies and television have morphed it into a Rashomon'style point'of'view. The interpretation of "reasonable doubt" is as unstable (and as potentially explosive) as nitroglycerin in a cocktail shaker.ĭespite what the media have led us to believe, the hallowed phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not self–explanatory. Originally published on The Zero, July 04, 2011 Cross-referencesĬlear and Convincing Proof Due Process of Law Preponderance of Evidence Reasonable Doubt."The Truth of 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' " by Andrew Vachss: The Zero 5.0laf – The Official Website of Andrew Vachss These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. ![]() It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.īeyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |