what does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?
In: 7
I just farted so violently, that I think I may have shit my pants.
It smells like shit, and my ass feels lubricated. Is there a reasonable doubt I have accidently shat my pants? Yes. The fart has a smell and my ass could just be sweaty. I may be uncomfortable, but I’ll have to verify visually before going home to change my underwear.
Now imagine that same scenario except shit is now leaking out of my shorts. Is there any more need to verify?
The term reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence needed in American criminal court to find someone guilty.
Lots of good examples here, but basically if you were asked to serve on a criminal jury, your instructions would be to decide if the evidence presented made you believe beyond a “reasonable doubt” that the crime was committed.
Obviously what’s reasonable to you not be reasonable to me, so that’s why (in large part) there’s a jury selection process…to identify bias and establish a baseline of competence for a group of people to hear the case.
There are other lesser standards of determination used for non-criminal matters (preponderance of the evidence, etc.) but that’s some bullshit for another day.
There are two common standards in legal matters.
The first is “the balance of probabilities”. This means basically 51%, or more likely than not – this is used in civil trials. Say I sue you over something. One of us is right and the other is wrong – so if I can show it is 51% likely I am right, I win.
The other is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This is used in criminal trials. The state must prove the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In that case, if I as prosecutor can show the defendant is 51% likely to be guilty, that isn’t good enough to convict. I have to show there is no “reasonable doubt” as to their guilt.
That is why a defendant may well escape being found guilty, but may be sued for the exact same alleged crime by their victim. The evidence only showed they were more likely than not guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s a deliberately ambiguous legal term that means absolute proof or empirical evidence of a crime is not required for a conviction. However to be fair it can work both ways.
My personal take on it is that it gives the judges and the judiciary room for manoeuvre in cases where a decision of absolute certainty may be impossible.
It accepts the fact that scientifically speaking, it can be hard to be ‘sure’ of anything 100%. So basically it means, if every other explanation is utterly ridiculous even if it’s technically plausible, then this is still reasonably the truth.
Latest Answers