what does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?
In: 7
In law, we have several different standards that apply to different situations.
In civil court (I’m suing you privately) we have a ‘balance of probability’ standard which essentially means 50/50. If the case I’m presenting is 51% likely to have happened and the case you’re presenting is 49% likely, I win on the balance of probabilities because I’m over 50%.
In criminal law, we use beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher burden to prove. It’s not 51%, it’s more like 95% or 99% certain to have happened. In other words, if the defence raises an issue that tips the scale even only 5% in their favour (5/95 split for defence/Crown), you have to acquit them. We use the higher standard because the stakes are much higher, you’re taking away someones liberty. You’re sending them to jail/prison. If the evidence the Crown (or State) provides in a trial leaves ‘a reasonable doubt’ as to the persons guilt **you cannot convict them.**
So say for example the Crown has an almost bullet proof case to convict you. They have a weapon. They have your prints on the weapon. They have a potential motive. But one thing they can’t show is that you were at the scene of the crime at 8:17 PM, you were just in the area. This one little thing might be enough to leave a ‘reasonable doubt’ as to whether you were the person who did the crime, and thus you can’t be convicted. So even though it was maybe 90-95% ‘likely’ you did the crime, that 5-10% amount of doubt you poked in the Crowns theory is enough to get you acquitted, because you raised a **reasonable doubt**.
There’s a timeless saying in criminal law: It’s better to let 99 guilty men walk free, than convict one innocent person. This is the reason we have such a high standard in criminal law.
Latest Answers