3 ms·

> The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. This is not true at all, at least in the US. On

> The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. This is not true at all, at least in the US. One of the core differences between criminal and civil cases is the burden of proof; the former requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", while for the latter it is "the preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" depending on the case. The definitions of these terms are not laser precise (I'm not sure how they could be), but there is at least a recognized role that the non-binary degree to which the evidence is convincing plays.

pdkl95 11y ago
The high bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is incre4dibly important, and a lot of people end up being distracted by concepts like efficiency, when the very basis of our legal system is that it isn't supposed to be efficient or "unbiased". It is intended to be explicitly biased against the state, so any of these probabilistic "gray" are a burden the state must overcome. Yes, this means we sometimes let some truly despicable people walk away without being punished. That's the point. While the devil is in the details, "reasonable" is a decent bar. We don't have to entertain every possibility. If your defense is that space-aliens made you do it, nobody is going to find that "reasonable". On the other hand, if you defense is at least a plausible alternative interpretation of the facts, I would consider that a "reasonable doubt". As we will always have a margin of error in complex human interactions, we have to decide if we want to err on the side of vengeance even when it affects innocent people, or if we want to protect the innocent even when it also involves giving protection to the guilty. It is at these boundary cases where concepts like "freedom" is tested. If we only give the protections of a "free" society to the people that don't need it while ignoring rights and due process when it is convenient (trials are expensive), then any claim about being a civilized are merely dishonest marketing.
- iofj 11y ago
  Meanwhile ... the government is hard at work reducing the available time a judge has to consider a case. It's down to hours on average, for complex cases, minutes (not even tens of minutes) for "simple" cases (ie. < 2 weeks jail). This forces judges to have an attitude along the lines of first offence -> warning plus fine if more than 1 week jail time, second offence -> same, but rescind driver license for a time as well, offence during driver license rescinded -> jail time. It is simply not possible to consider subtlety like ... oh, say, the actual case the government has under those rules. But of course, because the government has been so successful in reducing time spent per case, at this point, giving judges an hour per case minimum would involve increasing the size of the justice system tenfold, maybe more.
graycat 11y ago
> "the preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" Not if I'm on the jury.
- Tomte 11y ago
  Since the roles of plaintiff and defendant in civil cases are somewhat arbitrary (they mostly depend on procedural and strategic issues) and could just as easily be reversed, it's easy to see that a burden of proof that is too onerous would simultaneously be much too light.
  - graycat 11y ago
    Cute attempt at an exploitation of symmetry. But, IANAL, just find for the defendant and, thus, essentially dismiss the case.
Asbostos 11y ago
They still result in an outcome of "completely guilty" or "completely innocent". There's no "we'll give him a lighter sentence because we're only slightly convinced there's no reasonable doubt". There may be lighter sentences because the crime seems less bad to a judge, but not because the guilt seems less likely.

pdkl95 11y ago

The high bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is incre4dibly important, and a lot of people end up being distracted by concepts like efficiency, when the very basis of our legal system is that it isn't supposed to be efficient or "unbiased". It is intended to be explicitly biased against the state, so any of these probabilistic "gray" are a burden the state must overcome. Yes, this means we sometimes let some truly despicable people walk away without being punished. That's the point. While the devil is in the details, "reasonable" is a decent bar. We don't have to entertain every possibility. If your defense is that space-aliens made you do it, nobody is going to find that "reasonable". On the other hand, if you defense is at least a plausible alternative interpretation of the facts, I would consider that a "reasonable doubt". As we will always have a margin of error in complex human interactions, we have to decide if we want to err on the side of vengeance even when it affects innocent people, or if we want to protect the innocent even when it also involves giving protection to the guilty. It is at these boundary cases where concepts like "freedom" is tested. If we only give the protections of a "free" society to the people that don't need it while ignoring rights and due process when it is convenient (trials are expensive), then any claim about being a civilized are merely dishonest marketing.

iofj 11y ago
Meanwhile ... the government is hard at work reducing the available time a judge has to consider a case. It's down to hours on average, for complex cases, minutes (not even tens of minutes) for "simple" cases (ie. < 2 weeks jail). This forces judges to have an attitude along the lines of first offence -> warning plus fine if more than 1 week jail time, second offence -> same, but rescind driver license for a time as well, offence during driver license rescinded -> jail time. It is simply not possible to consider subtlety like ... oh, say, the actual case the government has under those rules. But of course, because the government has been so successful in reducing time spent per case, at this point, giving judges an hour per case minimum would involve increasing the size of the justice system tenfold, maybe more.

graycat 11y ago

> "the preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" Not if I'm on the jury.

Tomte 11y ago
Since the roles of plaintiff and defendant in civil cases are somewhat arbitrary (they mostly depend on procedural and strategic issues) and could just as easily be reversed, it's easy to see that a burden of proof that is too onerous would simultaneously be much too light.
- graycat 11y ago
  Cute attempt at an exploitation of symmetry. But, IANAL, just find for the defendant and, thus, essentially dismiss the case.

Asbostos 11y ago

They still result in an outcome of "completely guilty" or "completely innocent". There's no "we'll give him a lighter sentence because we're only slightly convinced there's no reasonable doubt". There may be lighter sentences because the crime seems less bad to a judge, but not because the guilt seems less likely.