Should the "beyond ANY reasonable doubt" standard of murder trials be abolished?

[LadyLeigh]

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that in America there exists a segment of the population which is uncomfortable that the standards for convicting someone for murder are that guilt must be established "beyond ANY reasonable doubt".

Such was on display after the OJ Simpson trial, and more recently during the Casey Anthony trial, and also echoed into the discussions over the Bin Laden death ("We couldn't have a trial because he could have been found non-guilty") and to some degree into the Strauss Kahn case even though this was not a murder case.

So, I would like to see the people who think that "beyond any reasonable doubt" is too tough a standard, instead of just making sneering remarks, come out and actually own what they are really saying when they complain about for instance the Casey Anthony verdict, and make the case that the principle should be replaced by something else.

Perhaps "guilty if guilt is more likely than innocence" would be better? Or "guilty if the DNA of the accused is found on the scene"? Or "guilty if there are two witnesses"? Or "guilty if I say so"?

What is it exactly that the people want who always seem to emerge when a person is found innocent after a somewhat controversial trial? I'd really like to know.

[cali]

1. what a horrendous idea.

the state has enormous resources, criminal defendants largely do not. Of course the standard should be beyond ANY reasonable doubt. And I don't think you'll find anyone here who doesn't believe that should be the standard.

[LadyLeigh]

2. I agree the idea is bad. Thats my point: I don't think anyone will argue against the principle.

However, in each and every famous murder trial with a controversial outcome, there seem to be a lot of people who imply that they disagree with the principle. I wonder about those.

[MFrohike]

3. It's beyond a reasonable doubt, not any

If the standard were "beyond any reasonable doubt," virtually no one could be convicted of anything. I'm nitpicking, but it's an important nitpick.

The above being said, prosecutors generally pick winnable cases. There really isn't much reason they should ever lose. When "outrageous" verdicts are seen, the only outrageous part is that the prosecution dropped the ball. It was theirs to win and they failed.

Of the standards you mention, they're all worthless. Preponderance, guilt being more likely than not, is fine for civil trials, but that's a pretty low bar when you're talking about taking away someone's liberty or life. The DNA one is even more useless because it's confusing a tool with a method. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Guilty if I say so could be amusing, but only if the judge were Oscar the Grouch.

[cali]

6. Great point. I don't think you're nitpicking at all.

excellent post. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[BzaDem]

11. Doesn't "a" imply "any" in this case?

If there exists ANY reasonable doubt X, then clearly one cannot be found guilty beyond A reasonable doubt (since X is such a reasonable doubt).

I know that using the word "any" makes it sound like a stricter standard intuitively, but seem to be identical in terms of the definitions.

[Hosnon]

21. I don't see the difference there.

The two words are interchangeable in this context.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. Yes, the OP screwed it up by using the word 'any' when the

standard actually uses the indefinite article 'a'. I don't think it's nitpicking at all to point that out.

Good defense of the 'reasonable doubt' threshold, btw. And welcome to DU!

[msongs]

4. "not proven" should be added to list of outcomes with guilty/not guilty nt

[Posteritatis]

8. Except that would be treated as synonymous with "guilty" by most people. (nt)

[Blue_In_AK]

5. I've transcribed hundreds of criminal trials,

including jury selections. It may not be like this in all states, but in Alaska the prosecutors always say something about how proof beyond a reasonable doubt does NOT mean proof beyond any doubt. "More likely than not" is the standard used in civil trials.

[SlimJimmy]

18. Agree. I think that is fairly standard for all jurisdictions

[Syrinx]

7. "any REASONABLE doubt"

Not "ANY reasonable doubt."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. that is not the standard.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard.

I was a legal secretary for years, a court reporter for twenty years, and I have a law degree.

Casey Anthony could be factually guilty but not legally guilty since the state had a weak case.

the standard should not change.

[Bluebear]

10. Absolutely not.

[rucky]

12. I think the real question you're asking is...

What is a greater injustice: An innocent person found guilty or a guilty person found innocent?

The justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty because it favors the side of the innocent - that includes the dangerous prospect of condemning an innocent person. An innocent person in jail makes that person a victim every day (and in some cases implies there's also a guilty person running free, which is the injustice you're focusing on. So putting less burden of proof for guilt will not solve that problem.

[Posteritatis]

19. Figuring out which of those someone chooses can be pretty telling in general

"It's better to let ten innocents be punished than let one guilty person go free" is a dangerous - and dangerously common - attitude, and it's one of those litmus-test sort of things I generally don't like but, in that case, use as a reliable way of telling whether I want to continue speaking to someone.

[ixion]

13. No.

that's the same rationale that was used to pass crap like the unPATRIOTic Act and the MCA, and is contrary to the idea of the Rule of Law.

[backscatter712]

14. In death-penalty cases, there should be an even higher standard.

Proof beyond ALL doubt.

That is, it must be flagrantly, blatantly obvious that the defendant did it. For example, he was caught on video committing the crime, and the video has a clear picture of him. That level of obvious.

[Orrex]

15. Absolutely! In fact, let's lynch anyone even accused of murder.

[seaglass]

16. I don't think people that felt both OJ and Anthony were guilty are looking for a

stricter standard. Juries make mistakes, prosecutors make mistakes. Sometimes the result is a guilty person going free as in the case of the 2 mentioned. Sometimes an innocent person is jailed or sentenced to death.

Why shouldn't we speak out when we feel the justice system doesn't work?

I sat on a jury and to this day I still don't know whether the correct verdict was rendered.

[MadHound]

17. No, for that way lies lynching, and a horrendous judicial system

Just because you're pissed about the verdicts of Anthony and Simpson, don't take it out on the entire judicial system. Take it out on those who own the blame, piss poor prosecution.

Far too many innocents are imprisoned and killed as is, we don't need to make that situation worse.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. No, but I think a higher standard should be in place for the death penalty

Something like "Beyond any possible doubt" where there is not only eyewitness testimony and physical evidence but also video evidence which supports the eyewitnesses.




I think what people want is the same justice system for people who can afford to spend millions on lawyers and for people who will lose their house because they can't go to work while wrongly imprisoned. Right now that doesn't exist in this country.

[gratuitous]

22. I'd say we're at least part of the way there already

All those high government officials who pronounced that justice had been served back in April all seemed convinced that the messiness and expense of a criminal trial were just too much to contemplate for someone whom "everyone" knew was guilty of something or other. Far more efficient to just shoot him and dump the body at sea. And millions of Americans agreed enthusiastically.

I think we're on our way to a criminal justice system that can be obviated on the strong feelings of at least one high government official. The quibble seems to be on whether just one official is enough, or how strongly that official has to feel before extra-judicial justice can be executed.

[Hosnon]

23. The standard is fine as it is. The problem is that it is not uniformly applied

in the real world.

Race, class, etc., all figure into the equation.

[mulsh]

24. Ewin Meese said that "innocent people don't get indicted" so

yeah, sure we should do away with the reasonable doubt standard and just employ the standard media claque method.
:sarcasm:

Edwin Meese was Reagan's Attorney General and one of the most ignorant and mean spirited people I've ever had the misfortune to meet.

NO, I don't think reasonable doubt should be tossed out in criminal cases. I think prosecutors and defendants attorneys need to do due diligence.

[hunter]

25. Oh bother. Shoot them all, let God sort them out.

-- Arnaud Amalric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric

:sarcasm:

[RegieRocker]

27. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not adhered to now.

Flimsy evidence and speculation are what prevails in most trial cases.