Reasonable doubt

The jury system came to Canada by the British settlers in the mid-1700s and is composed of 12 representatives of the community to provide judgment by peers (v+n). “The purpose of a trial is to answer the question of who did what to whom and whether such conduct is legal” (v+n). The jury acts as adjudicators and are called triers of facts that serve the purpose of listening to evidence and facts presented in court in order to decide who did what to whom and if such conduct was legal, out of the…

and all the action takes place within the court...and quite a bit happens in these times of trouble. Atticus uses the persuasion methods of ethos, pathos, as well as logos to support his creation of reasonable doubt. Atticus’s use of ethos, logos, and pathos are effective in raising reasonable doubt in Tom’s case. To begin, Atticus Finch was effective in his use of ethos and with his interrogative methodology to the witness. Atticus uses a notable example of Ethos as observed in the following…

men moved to America before World War 1 had begun. Due to the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were both Italian immigrants, and were convicted of their crime during a time of massive hatred toward foreigners, the justice system disregarded all the reasonable doubt in their case and declared them guilty. After the conclusion of World War 1, Anti-Immigrant feelings within the…

film, it seemed that a multiple jurors participated in group-think during the decision making. Some jurors even stated that 5 minutes would be long enough and there was no more need for deliberation even though there was clearly much room for reasonable doubt. Negative Social Interdependence Theory began to come into play when the other jurors who were satisfied with making a final decision based on group-think started to have open disagreement with Davis. Many of the jurors who originally…

here are two recognised standards of proof in Scots law. The first is beyond reasonable doubt, which is usually in criminal cases. The second is on the balance of probabilities which arises mostly in the civil context. This would suggest that the law on the standard of proof is straightforward. However ambiguity arises in the argument that there is or that there should be a third standard. Another important complication to this area of the law arises when considering civil circumstances that may…

American legal system is their propensity to answer any outcome within the system that “the system worked.” Subsequently, as long as the defender can define what is meant by the claim, there is no result that can disprove it. Due to this, it is reasonable to argue that the acquittal of Casey Anthony and the removal of charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn are both examples of how the system should work. However, when accepting this argument entails recognizing the imperfections the American…

The standard of proof in Gagnon cases is different from criminal cases. Criminal court cases require a higher level of proof in which the prosecutor must prove that the probationer or parolee committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the state must prove its case regarding the greater likelihood that the accused party did indeed commit the offense prior to imposing any fine and/or sentence upon the accused (Preponderance of the Evidence, 2010). Gagnon cases are handled more along…

Walter White, and defendant Elshaday Yilma will be found complicit. However, evidence will be found insufficient for the jury or an otherwise reasonable person to convict either defendant of robbery. During the trial, the jury will convict Ponder and Yilma of murder and complicity to murder because of the evidence that will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. As seen in chapter 507, section 20 of the Penal Code for The State of Berea College, The Actus Reus of Murder is an…

the prosecution presents evidence in a case to make the defendant look guilty. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof according to the U.S. Justice system. When prosecution is proving beyond a reasonable doubt they have to prove that there is no other explanation for the crime except that the defendant did it. An example of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is that there is no doubt at all the facts of the case and the defendant committed the crime. 3. Explain what is…

Yes, America is a free country and is known for it’s freedom, however when the country has been attacked by terrorists, it affects basic human rights. It affects the rights of life, liberty, and physical integrity of victims. (Human Rights, Terrorism, and Counter-terrorism, 2015) One might argue that freedom and human rights is what America is known for and not granting a human constitutional rights is unconstitutional, however citizens have been a part of the United States and are given these…