4 ms·

People falsely assume that that standard is one of absolute scientific certainty. It is not. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt simply means that no reasonable per

People falsely assume that that standard is one of absolute scientific certainty. It is not. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt simply means that no reasonable person would come to any other conclusion than that of guilt. To assume that guilt beyond any reasonable doubt as an absolute, scientific and completely infallible standard demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the legal system. The system may be flawed and cases may or may prosecuted for the reasons that were mentioned but many of those reasons like available resources have little if anything to do with the standard of proof that must be brought to trial. Individuals can be prosecuted on very paltry evidence and even convicted if reasonable people find that evidence to be sufficient. To believe that any lower standard of proof is needed to prosecute individuals is to pander to mob mentality that just because most people want to find someone guilty means we should find them guilty. This burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is set in place precisely to avoid such legal lynching proceedings

Manishearth 9y ago
The gp never made this assumption, you're making it for them. It's still not the same standard as the one society needs. The state wields a big hammer, and such it has relatively high standards. Us, individual society members, wield a tiny mallet, and as such we should feel more free to wield that than the state does. As the gp notes, we already do in many cases. The courts should really be the last resort for this stuff; society should be dealing with it cleanly before it ever gets there.
- swat535 9y ago
  I never claimed the Gp made any assumption to begin with. Beyond any reasonable doubt means precisely that. It can vary from person to person and from group to group. The state is indeed very powerful compared to the individual. But the mighty hammer you speak of simply implies that the state can bring more resources to bear when prosecuting. This only means in principle that the state can drag a trial longer (and from which we are protected by the right to a speedy trial) or that they can expend more effort gathering evidence against an accused. Your argument about individual members of society however is, with respect, flawed. The masses of society, when all working towards a common goal are not tiny droplets in the pond but indeed the mighty torrent that can sweep away even so powerful an entity as the state. To advocate for a lower standard of evidence based on the fact that "everyone knows he is guilty" is, as mentioned, to advocate for a trial system based on mob mentality. Furthermore, public opinion can can be easily swayed by what is reported to it and I will spare this thread the question of the media or powerful individuals like Trump or Russia or Clinton etc using the media to subvert public opinion. The system again may not be perfect but it is there to protect not only from the might of the state but also from the dictatorship of the masses which may, unlike the court system, have their own reasons for convicting someone, reasons which may not even have anything to do with the actual matter. This is even more problematic as the court system is at least subject to review and appeal whereas the masses have absolutely no check on them.

Manishearth 9y ago

The gp never made this assumption, you're making it for them. It's still not the same standard as the one society needs. The state wields a big hammer, and such it has relatively high standards. Us, individual society members, wield a tiny mallet, and as such we should feel more free to wield that than the state does. As the gp notes, we already do in many cases. The courts should really be the last resort for this stuff; society should be dealing with it cleanly before it ever gets there.

swat535 9y ago
I never claimed the Gp made any assumption to begin with. Beyond any reasonable doubt means precisely that. It can vary from person to person and from group to group. The state is indeed very powerful compared to the individual. But the mighty hammer you speak of simply implies that the state can bring more resources to bear when prosecuting. This only means in principle that the state can drag a trial longer (and from which we are protected by the right to a speedy trial) or that they can expend more effort gathering evidence against an accused. Your argument about individual members of society however is, with respect, flawed. The masses of society, when all working towards a common goal are not tiny droplets in the pond but indeed the mighty torrent that can sweep away even so powerful an entity as the state. To advocate for a lower standard of evidence based on the fact that "everyone knows he is guilty" is, as mentioned, to advocate for a trial system based on mob mentality. Furthermore, public opinion can can be easily swayed by what is reported to it and I will spare this thread the question of the media or powerful individuals like Trump or Russia or Clinton etc using the media to subvert public opinion. The system again may not be perfect but it is there to protect not only from the might of the state but also from the dictatorship of the masses which may, unlike the court system, have their own reasons for convicting someone, reasons which may not even have anything to do with the actual matter. This is even more problematic as the court system is at least subject to review and appeal whereas the masses have absolutely no check on them.