what does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?
In: 7
On my way home today I saw a car pulled over with hazards on. The truck in front of me was slowing down, obviously looking at the pulled over car, then they turned off the road we were on and into the Hindu temple driveway. As they were turning I saw the passenger and drivers faces, I also saw the passenger on their phone and pointing to the pulled over car. Both the driver, passenger, and driver of the pulled over car are white.
I believe the pulled over car was being helped by the car that turned into the Hindu temple. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that they were turning around in the parking lot to come-back to help the pulled over car. While its possible the occupants of the truck infront of me had an odd interest in the pulled over car but were really only turning into the temple in order to attend a worship ceremony it is less likely and significantly more difficult to believe that two white guys in a truck who were pointing to a pulled over car, having exchanged looks and genlstures with the dither driver, had converted to Hinduism and had no intention of helping the pulled over car but instead were just going about their business at the temple.
Introducing a reasonable doubt would be removing the notion that the truck occupants were attending worship at the temple but arguing that they were lost on their way to do maintenance at the temple. That any gestures I saw were just emphatic conversation between driver and passenger while looking for the correct place to work..
Ah, a nice cuf of coffee in the morning makes for a great start of the day.
> That coffee isn’t real.
What do you mean? I can feel it in my hands.
> The nerves in your hands are deceiving you. It’s not there.
Alright, Morpheus, but I can can still see it with my eyes.
> You’re wearing VR goggles without knowing it.
But I can still smell it, dude.
> Synthetic smell, made by corporations to have you think it’s there.
But I can hear it being made by the machine.
> Fake news.
Okay, technically you might be right, but your objections can’t be checked. So my conclusion that my coffee is real is not perfectly proven, but it’s beyond reasonable doubt, so I’ll keep it for now.
Philosophers can argue about things for literally years, and they have very interesting methods of reasoning and proving, but in court we have to make decisions somewhat right now. So when something is beyond reasonable doubt, it’s enough to assume the conclusion.
What is considered reasonable doubt, is of course different in a murder case than it it is in a he-stole-my-pokemon-card case.
You can assert that your dog ate your homework as an excuse for why you are unable to present it before the deadline for submission expires. This is a doubtful, incredible claim, and is unlikely to such extent that it can be dismissed by an impartial juror as untruthful. However, if you have an untarnished record of honestly and can produce remnants of the assignment that are dimpled with canine bite marks and smell of dried Purina slobber, this is evidence supporting the truth of your claim. Is it possible that this exonerating evidence was fabricated? Yes, but it is unreasonable to doubt your claim in the face of the evidence provided.
In a criminal court case the prosecution must prove their case to the point where no reasonable doubts are left in the juror’s minds.
Say you’re charged with theft of a car.
An unreasonable doubt would be that aliens materialized and stole the car.
A reasonable doubt might be that 1) someone else stole the car or 2) that the car rolled away into the river because the parking brake wasn’t engaged or 3) the owner of the car sold it to you and claimed it was stole to so they could commit insurance fraud.
The defense team has to make arguments and show evidence to support the reasonable doubts and the prosecution has to make arguments and show evidence to knock-down those reasonable doubts.
After the prosecution and the defense have made their cases the jurors then argues with each other and decide if they have any reasonable doubts left. The jury has to make a unanimous decision.
If the jury decides to convict the person [find them guilty] then they have no reasonable doubts left. In other words, the prosecution has proved their case beyond any reasonable doubts.
Can identical twins get away with Bbsically any crime due to looking exactly alike, having the same DNA and it certainly is reasonable that you can’t prove which one was actually there?
Here is the pattern jury instruction for the state of Georgia on what “reasonable doubt” means: A reasonable doubt means just what it says. It is a doubt of a fair-minded, impartial juror honestly seeking the truth. It is a doubt based upon common sense and reason. It does not mean a vague or arbitrary doubt, but it is a doubt for which a reason can be given arising from a consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence, a conflict in the evidence, or any combination of these. There is no burden of proof upon the defendant whatsoever, and the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove his innocence.
If, after giving consideration to all of the facts and circumstances of this case, your minds are wavering, unsettled, or unsatisfied, then that is a doubt of the law, and you should acquit the defendant. But if no doubt exists in your minds about the guilt of the accused, then you will be authorized to convict the defendant. If the State fails to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to acquit the defendant.
It’s reasonable to doubt your lactose intolerant friend ate your last slice of cake. There’s enough evidence to suggest he probably, most likely, didn’t do it.
It’s unreasonable to doubt your friend with crumbs and icing on his face, standing next to the same container your slice of cake was in didn’t eat it. While it’s not undeniable proof, almost all pieces of evidence point to that he did it.
Another silly example, cause these actively help people remember:
If you see a turd on the floor in your house, and you own a dog, it’s reasonable to suspect the dog did it, and not your 15 year old brother. It’s entirely possible that your brother did it, but it’s just super unlikely.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high level of certainty that is needed in a criminal case, in order to find the person guilty. At the end of a criminal trial, a judge will explain to the jury that, in order to find the defendant guilty of the crime, you must be so convinced by the evidence, that you have no reasonable doubt.
In other types of legal cases, the level of certainty is lower. Usually by a preponderance of evidence, which basically means you’re more than 50% sure. In other words it’s more likely than not.
But to convict someone of a crime, the level of certainty is much higher. Lawyers are not allowed to give it a percentage in court, but you can think of it as being 99% sure, instead of 51% sure.
Criminal Cases: Beyond a reasonable doubt= 99% sure
Most other legal cases: Preponderance of evidenct= 51% sure
The jury instruction for this in Massachusetts is about two pages long and as clear as mud. It’s such a hard concept to define and explain and yet it’s one of the most important parts of our criminal justice system.
Imagine coming home to see your favorite vase broken. At home are your 5 year old child, your spouse, and your dog. All 3 of them are suspects.
You ask your spouse who broke it and they answer “oh sorry, honey, I was so busy I didn’t even notice!”
You ask your kid and they answer “it’s the dog!”
Your dog whimpers, unable to mount any credible defense.
Since you’re vaguely aware of proof beyond reasonable doubt, you check further:
– no dog footprints in the vicinity of the vase
– the cookie jar beside the vase has been opened
– your kid has a new cut on his forearm
Based on these evidence, you harbor reasonable doubt that it’s the dog since the evidence seems to point elsewhere.
Could it be your kid? You check his breath: it smells of cookies. You check the broken pieces of the vase and you see blood leading to your kid’s room. He sees where you’re going with this and hides.
You’re now as certain as you possibly can without having been there at the precise moment it happened: your kid did it. Reasonable doubt is being able to say with certainty that the person you suspect, and not anyone else, is responsible.
Had your standard been ‘preponderance of evidence’ or ‘substantial evidence’, your kid exclaiming “it’s the dog!” would have been enough.
Source: I am a law professor
Latest Answers