Is "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Too High of a Standard?

[Captain Adverse]

We should be grateful we do have a "presumption of innocence" which requires the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are countries where a person accused of a crime is presumed guilty and has the burden of proving his innocence. This is based on the idea that the State would not be charging the defendant unless he had done something wrong. The problem is that all the cards are stacked in the State's favor under this system. Aside from the fact the state has all the power and resources and the defendant has only his own to fight back with, the defendant is also facing the difficulty of proving a negative; i.e. "I did not do it."

That requires either an iron-clad alibi, meaning incontrovertible proof the defendant was elsewhere at the time; or incontrovertible proof (i.e. video evidence) that while he may have been present he did not act as the charges claim. Absent that, he is bound for prison.

 

[specklebang]

"Impossible"? That's quite an exaggeration on your part. Let's work together to get our definitions matched up. Together we stand, divided we fall.

99% of all cases are blatantly obvious. There's a "smoking gun", DNA, material evidence, reliable witnesses, confessions, testimony etc. The case that triggered this discussion is one of the rarer ones, very nuanced, damn near at the edge of philosophical. I'll assume Zimmerman was found innocent because there was a reasonable doubt under Florida law as to wether you can initiate violence but defend yourself from the reaction. In many states, Zimmerman MIGHT have been found guilty of stalking or even manslaughter. In Florida, the law was on his side.

How any single case becomes such a notable situation where people judge the case not by law, but by politics, is a mystery and an exception.

Every time I see someone released from prison after 10, 20, 30 years because they were determined later to be innocent, it breaks my heart. How wrong is that? You get to live once (unless you're religious in which case you live forever hanging with the god-guy) and you spent much of that short time behind bars. All those vases turn out to be extremely shadowed by doubt.

And yes, I do believe that its worth letting some get away to be sure nobody is falsely convicted. Even you.

If I'm the one being accused, of course I'd prefer an impossible standard whether I'm guilty or not. To prove a case beyond all doubt the jury would had to have seen it themselves.

 

[Paschendale]

Respectfully, I think you must be misinterpreting the law. If the prosecution can prove "malice aforethought" beyond a reasonable doubt, then self-defense cannot apply because there is no "malice aforethought" when acting in self-defense. Self-defense is a legally accepted fear response to imminent death or serious bodily injury. Malice aforethought is a predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse.

They are mutually exclusive, i.e. if I can show self-defense then I was not acting with malice aforethought; however if the state can show malice aforethought then I was not acting in self-defense.

I know it doesn't really work out that way. I was just trying to explain the rules. A lot of this thread is hyperbolic ranting about a problem that doesn't really exist. Asserting self-defense does not mean that the defendant is suddenly guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't work that way, no matter how many people want to support vigilantism.

 

[X Factor]

"Impossible"? That's quite an exaggeration on your part. Let's work together to get our definitions matched up. Together we stand, divided we fall.

99% of all cases are blatantly obvious. There's a "smoking gun", DNA, material evidence, reliable witnesses, confessions, testimony etc. The case that triggered this discussion is one of the rarer ones, very nuanced, damn near at the edge of philosophical. I'll assume Zimmerman was found innocent because there was a reasonable doubt under Florida law as to wether you can initiate violence but defend yourself from the reaction. In many states, Zimmerman MIGHT have been found guilty of stalking or even manslaughter. In Florida, the law was on his side.

How any single case becomes such a notable situation where people judge the case not by law, but by politics, is a mystery and an exception.

Every time I see someone released from prison after 10, 20, 30 years because they were determined later to be innocent, it breaks my heart. How wrong is that? You get to live once (unless you're religious in which case you live forever hanging with the god-guy) and you spent much of that short time behind bars. All those vases turn out to be extremely shadowed by doubt.

And yes, I do believe that its worth letting some get away to be sure nobody is falsely convicted. Even you.

What you said was you think the standard of proof should be proof beyond all doubt. That means the state would have to exclude all doubt, whether it's a reasonable or not. There's always going to be some degree of doubt, even if there is a "smoking gun". The only way to preclude all doubt, like you want, is to witness the event yourself (and even there, people sometimes have doubt about what they think they see). This is indeed an impossible standard.

 

[specklebang]

You are just upping the ante. I said "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and you changed my words (and my meaning) to "all doubt". Why would I suggest the impossible? All I'm suggesting is that the standards of the present have not been effective and need to be raised.

Nobody has to be confused between a "smoking gun" and not having personally witnessed something. Common standards of logic have to be set somewhere.

The Martin/Zimmrman case has unique aspects because of legal technicalities of a specific state. Had this event occurred in VT or NJ, the outcome might have been different. But I attempted to clarify that I'm discussing legal issues in general, not the M/Z case in particular.

What you said was you think the standard of proof should be proof beyond all doubt. That means the state would have to exclude all doubt, whether it's a reasonable or not. There's always going to be some degree of doubt, even if there is a "smoking gun". The only way to preclude all doubt, like you want, is to witness the event yourself (and even there, people sometimes have doubt about what they think they see). This is indeed an impossible standard.

 

[trfjr]

I'm especially interested in hearing from those who think Zimmerman should have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. The State not only had the burden of proving that Zimmerman killed Martin but once the Martin lawyers brought up self defense, the state had to disprove that it was self defense by that same high standard. I think it's clear the state could not meet that burden so I'm asking all you, especially those of you who think the verdict was unjust, is that burden just too high to put on the prosecutor?

Answers will be yes, no, and I don't know/maybe.

Working on poll.

i rather have 10 guilty people go free than put one innocent person in jail

 

[X Factor]

You are just upping the ante. I said "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and you changed my words (and my meaning) to "all doubt". Why would I suggest the impossible? All I'm suggesting is that the standards of the present have not been effective and need to be raised.

Nobody has to be confused between a "smoking gun" and not having personally witnessed something. Common standards of logic have to be set somewhere.

The Martin/Zimmrman case has unique aspects because of legal technicalities of a specific state. Had this event occurred in VT or NJ, the outcome might have been different. But I attempted to clarify that I'm discussing legal issues in general, not the M/Z case in particular.

What do you think "beyond a shadow of a doubt" means?

Beyond the shadow of a doubt
Beyond the shadow of a doubt, or beyond a shadow of a doubt, is a standard of proof. The phrase means the issue in question is so obvious, or has been so thoroughly proven, that there can exist no doubt.[1] Two possible interpretations of "Beyond a shadow" might refer, first, to the fact that doubt could be nowhere in the vicinity (completely expelled from the issue), or second, to the thoroughness of the argument (a shadow being even less substantial than a doubt itself).[2]

Beyond the shadow of a doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's an impossible standard that you want to impose. As to why you want to impose an possible standard, I don't know.

 

[specklebang]

Because I'm out to get you. Because the impossible takes a little longer. Because I'm probably leaning toward the second interpretation.

Because the thought of the innocent being punished really bothers me. Because most cases are beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think it means "virtually certain".

What do you think "beyond a shadow of a doubt" means?



Beyond the shadow of a doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's an impossible standard that you want to impose. As to why you want to impose an possible standard, I don't know.

 

[Bronson]

The jury system worked

Get over it and move on libs

 

[X Factor]

Because I'm out to get you. Because the impossible takes a little longer. Because I'm probably leaning toward the second interpretation.

Because the thought of the innocent being punished really bothers me. Because most cases are beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think it means "virtually certain".

Well I suppose that's one way to make sure that there are no mistakes; make it so that it's just not possible to convict anyone of a crime ever.

Most cases could not be be proven if the standard of proof means that the state has to provide proof that excludes even unreasonable doubt. The closest I could think of is if the crime is on video.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I'm especially interested in hearing from those who think Zimmerman should have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. The State not only had the burden of proving that Zimmerman killed Martin but once the Martin lawyers brought up self defense, the state had to disprove that it was self defense by that same high standard. I think it's clear the state could not meet that burden so I'm asking all you, especially those of you who think the verdict was unjust, is that burden just too high to put on the prosecutor?

Answers will be yes, no, and I don't know/maybe.

Working on poll.

i don't know.

the reason for my answer is that i approached this entire case under a misconception. I thought the jury could convict Zimmerman on manslaughter if they found doubt with his story. i thought that zimmerman had to proof his story true beyond a reasonable doubt.

but trials don't work that way, and that the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not that and Zimmerman having to prove he was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm astounded by the level of ignorance in this country... on all subjects, not just this one. Is there any way to conduct a mock trial on DP? I think nothing would drive home the points that presumption of innocence, burden of proof and beyond reasonable doubt are indispensable to our freedom.

Remove these safeguards to our liberty and the "state" can convict anyone of anything at anytime.

 

[specklebang]

Look, you've been completely polite and respectful about this conversation but you still insist on using exaggeration to win your argument.

There are many ways to be certain about guilt or innocence. If you take a look at Innocence Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia you'll see how lame these convictions were and how the prosecution deliberately avoided the correct resolution. Nobody, not even me, requires impossibile standards. But if the shadow of a doubt concept had been applied, none of these injustices would have occurred.

So, please stop repeating your "then nobody will be convicted" shtick. All I ask is that every possibility be explored in cases that go to trial, a tiny percentage. Why would a state resist DNA testing? Why would a state prompt or bribe a witness? Why would a state withhold exculpatory evidence? To "win"? It's supposed to be about justice, not about victory.

Well I suppose that's one way to make sure that there are no mistakes; make it so that it's just not possible to convict anyone of a crime ever.

Most cases could not be be proven if the standard of proof means that the state has to provide proof that excludes even unreasonable doubt. The closest I could think of is if the crime is on video.

 

[X Factor]

Look, you've been completely polite and respectful about this conversation but you still insist on using exaggeration to win your argument.

There are many ways to be certain about guilt or innocence. If you take a look at Innocence Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia you'll see how lame these convictions were and how the prosecution deliberately avoided the correct resolution. Nobody, not even me, requires impossibile standards. But if the shadow of a doubt concept had been applied, none of these injustices would have occurred.

So, please stop repeating your "then nobody will be convicted" shtick. All I ask is that every possibility be explored in cases that go to trial, a tiny percentage. Why would a state resist DNA testing? Why would a state prompt or bribe a witness? Why would a state withhold exculpatory evidence? To "win"? It's supposed to be about justice, not about victory.

I'm sticking to the language you insist on using. My goodness man, I even provided the definition of beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no question that the cases in that link would not be convicted by your standard. The same would be true of about 97.5 percent of the cases.

You want "every possibility" to be explored? Ok, there is always a possibility that aliens from Zagnon 5 cloned a person and it was the clone that committed the offense. Since you want to take "reasonableness" out of criminal law, the state would have to exclude all doubt even if it's completely unreasonable (as in even entertaining the idea that the Zagnon clone committed the offense).

 

[specklebang]

Igoo Cham. Pyungshin Katun Nomah. You really are being ludicrous and your example, well, exemplifies this. Your use of wild exaggerations isn't very helpful. If you think that 97.5% (your figure) would not have been convicted because they used DNA or held the prosecution to a higher standard, then we are at an impasse. The term "every possibility" does not include alien invasions. It includes all possible evidence.

Let it rest. OK?

I'm sticking to the language you insist on using. My goodness man, I even provided the definition of beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no question that the cases in that link would not be convicted by your standard. The same would be true of about 97.5 percent of the cases.

You want "every possibility" to be explored? Ok, there is always a possibility that aliens from Zagnon 5 cloned a person and it was the clone that committed the offense. Since you want to take "reasonableness" out of criminal law, the state would have to exclude all doubt even if it's completely unreasonable (as in even entertaining the idea that the Zagnon clone committed the offense).

 

[Ray410]

situation.

I looked up and read the Florida rules on affirmative defenses specifically right before typing that post. It means that you have to show evidence to support it. Preponderance is a pretty easy standard to meet. The same is also true of New York. Every defendant can, of course, put on absolutely no case and rely on the prosecution not proving their case, but in order to claim the defense of alibi, for example, a jury would be instructed not to acquit based on that defense unless they felt it was more likely than not true. Obviously they could and should still acquit if they do not think that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a cite to the Florida self defense rules that you reference having studied?

From what I have been able to find, it would seem to appear that Florida case law has modified the affirmative defense of Self Defense to the extent that once affirmatively raised by the Defense, the Prosecution then has the burden or proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of self defense were not met by the defendant. If the Prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those elements were not met, then the jury must find the defendant Not Guilty.

As you clearly stated, this is not the classic accepted definition and I'd just like a little further clarification if you have it.

 

[Caine]

No one would be precluded from raising a defense. The standard of proof is what the jury is told to apply. The evidence isn't offered to the judge and then ruled on in a separate hearing to dismiss. It is offered to the jury. But the jury will be instructed to convict if they find the prosecution's case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and then instructed not to convict if they find the affirmative defense more likely true than not... even if they still find the prosecution's case proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a defendant-friendly system. The point is to allow separate determinations as opposed to simply putting all the evidence on a single sliding scale.

Taken as an example for this case, the prosecution could prove that Z killed Trayvon with malice aforethought beyond a reasonable doubt, but still have Z then prove that he was entitled to defend himself by preponderance of the evidence. That means acquittal, which is, I suspect, exactly what happened. I don't think he was entitled to that defense due to his instigation of the confrontation via stalking and intimidation, but I'm not on that jury. All I can really tell you is how the rules work.

Also, New York's laws are definitely not "weird ones". New York follows most majority rules and ends up defining many of them. But either way, the basic structure of an affirmative defense is universal as far as I know. I suppose that some states might simply not have them, but those would be the "weird ones". I don't know which state you live in, but I suspect it works the same way as New York and Florida. Any federal court certainly would.

That is the part where you are wrong.....

George Zimmerman's actions did not amount to "stalking" under the legal definition.

And there is no evidence of "intimidation" anywhere.

 

[Buck Ewer]

You cannot convict someone of murder just because there were no witnesses.

The burden in such a case should be at least even.
Giving the killer the advantage is just asking for abuse of the law and un-punishable murder.

 

[MaggieD]

The burden in such a case should be at least even. Giving the killer the advantage is just asking for abuse of the law and un-punishable murder.

The burden is right where it belongs. You must remember that justice for the defendant is expensive. And expensive means elusive. If the State determines a crime has been committed, it has unlimited resources to throw at prosecution, including investigative efforts, forensics processing, manpower, expert witness testimony, the fear factor, technology, etc., etc.

It is with that most distinct advantage that the State enters the courtroom. If, with all of that, the State cannot prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? It either made some whopping mistakes that violated the defendant's Constitutional rights, or the defendant is innocent.

I'm not willing to give the State any greater advantage than it already has. And neither should anyone else.