Burden of Proof: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
If one is studying law, one should be familiar with the burden of proof and how it may be confusing to understand what beyond reasonable doubt is in criminal cases. If not, burden of proof is where the duty is placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or simply which party bears this burden. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the evidence presented must be complete and conclusive that there are no reasonable doubts concerning the guilt of the accused. Although, courts tend not to place a numerical value on beyond a reasonable doubt; society thinks that it has to be at least 99% confident that the defendant committed the crime. On the other hand, in civil cases the plaintiff is required to meet the preponderance of the evidence, which means the …show more content…
With that said, courts should at least explain and break down elements to jury’s simply because this could fixed a problem within/ criminal trials. Solan article also mentions that Norbert Kerr and his colleagues did a study on the burden of proof dealing with a rape trail and the jury ended up receiving a lax meaning of what was to be considered reasonable doubt was for the trail. Result from this study indicate that juries convict less often when asked to focus on how well the government actually proved its case instead of how well the defense has established doubt.
In conclusion, some courts still have not found an actual definition to what “beyond a reasonable doubt” is. With that said, courts continue to seek definitions that are reasonable ones. That way, juries could at least prevent as many convictions as possible. However, it is possible if there is clear and convincing
If one is studying law, one should be familiar with the burden of proof and how it may be confusing to understand what beyond reasonable doubt is in criminal cases. If not, burden of proof is where the duty is placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or simply which party bears this burden. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the evidence presented must be complete and conclusive that there are no reasonable doubts concerning the guilt of the accused. Although, courts tend not to place a numerical value on beyond a reasonable doubt; society thinks that it has to be at least 99% confident that the defendant committed the crime. On the other hand, in civil cases the plaintiff is required to meet the preponderance of the evidence, which means the …show more content…
With that said, courts should at least explain and break down elements to jury’s simply because this could fixed a problem within/ criminal trials. Solan article also mentions that Norbert Kerr and his colleagues did a study on the burden of proof dealing with a rape trail and the jury ended up receiving a lax meaning of what was to be considered reasonable doubt was for the trail. Result from this study indicate that juries convict less often when asked to focus on how well the government actually proved its case instead of how well the defense has established doubt.
In conclusion, some courts still have not found an actual definition to what “beyond a reasonable doubt” is. With that said, courts continue to seek definitions that are reasonable ones. That way, juries could at least prevent as many convictions as possible. However, it is possible if there is clear and convincing