» » Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Letters and Essays from the Famous and Infamous on the True Legal Definition of Guilt in America's Courtrooms

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Letters and Essays from the Famous and Infamous on the True Legal Definition of Guilt in America's Courtrooms download epub

by Brian Williams,Sh Engemann,Larry King


Epub Book: 1649 kb. | Fb2 Book: 1967 kb.

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Beyond a reasonable doubt. What then does it really mean? How can it be interpreted? In Beyond a Reasonable Doubt over 80 of the most influential scholars, attorneys, novelists, journalists, and religious figures discuss, explore, interpret, and define the phrase and its meaning

In Beyond a Reasonable Doubt more than 80 distinguished contributors reflect on what this standard really means .

In Beyond a Reasonable Doubt more than 80 distinguished contributors reflect on what this standard really means and how it is applied. Brilliantly dissecting its meaning from every angle, attorneys, judges, novelists, journalists, religious and convicted felons shine a light on the most compelling standard in our legal system.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Letters and Essays from the Famous and Infamous on the True Legal Definition of Guilt in America's Courtrooms. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Are you sure you want to remove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt from your list? Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Published September 1, 2007 by Phoenix Audio.

Many legal scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as. .On the other hand, if there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, then the defendant should be pronounced innocent.

Many legal scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51% of the evidence shown favors the plaintiff’s story and outcome. Another way to think of the standard is to simply ask whether the plaintiff’s proposition is more likely to be true than not true. If the prosecution fails to prove guilt by beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant does not need to prove anything. An example of the difference between the two standards is the infamous .

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities (commonly used in civil matters) and is usually therefore reserved for criminal matters where what is at stake (. someone's liberty) is considered more serious and therefore deserving of a higher threshold.

Beyond a reasonable doubt" means that if a reasonable person was presented with the evidence in a court .

Beyond a reasonable doubt" means that if a reasonable person was presented with the evidence in a court case, he or she would.

Legal definition of reasonable doubt: a doubt especially about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains . A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists.

Legal definition of reasonable doubt: a doubt especially about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof. It must be more than an imaginary doubt, and it is often defined judicially as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance. Learn More about reasonable doubt.

Definition of reasonable doubt in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English . Meaning of reasonable doubt as a legal term

Definition of reasonable doubt in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is reasonable doubt? Meaning of reasonable doubt as a legal term.

In American courtrooms, juries are instructed to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining their . In today's world, the reasonable doubt standard tends to favor the accused by placing a strict burden of proof on the prosecution

In American courtrooms, juries are instructed to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining their verdicts. They are often not told what this means, however. When they are, even the definition itself is nebulous; in many legal documents it goes something along the lines of "a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful consideration of all the evidence. In today's world, the reasonable doubt standard tends to favor the accused by placing a strict burden of proof on the prosecution. But it came into use in medieval England for just the opposite reason.


Comments: (3)

Chillhunter
You can pick up this book and start reading at the beginning, middle or end. Whether you read it for five minutes or five hours it's enjoyable and provides valuable insights.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, has many authors. They range from the famous to the infamous. From high-profile attorneys to everyday hoodlums. Together, they provide a fascinating compendium of what is required to prove a defendant guilty before a jury. A brief biography of each author is presented along with their opinion. Some positions reflect on years of careful thought and introspection. Other opinions are shot from the hip.

The book deals with the criminal and the civil justice systems. A good case is made that the civil system is arbitrary because right and wrong have lost their meaning. Examples are provided for medical malpractice, business ethics and contracts. The state of the criminal justice system is more ambiguous. Strong arguments are made for both the equity and inequity of criminal justice.

All of the information provided is valuable to anyone who may be called to jury duty. Selected information can be used to bolster just about any bias one may have regarding our justice system. The range of authors and the fact that they are kept to just a few hundred words, make for entertaining reading.
Kirizan
This book deals with a number of topics and has 85 contributors. An important topic is jury nullification. This is the case where a jury decides, quite legally, to let a guilty person go free. A jury can also intentionally convict an innocent person, but that can often be appealed. I'm against jury nullification. Many years ago, some students were unhappy about the fact that secret (and highly inaccurate) files were being kept on them by their university. They protested, but they could get nowhere because the existence of these files was denied! Finally, some of them broke into a dean's office, restrained the dean (that's a crime; it's called "kidnapping"), opened his file cabinet, and removed the secret files (that's also a crime).

Although the criminals accomplished something positive by their crimes, I felt the criminals needed to be punished in accordance with the law. They weren't, and as a result, numerous destructive "copycat" crimes followed which did no one any good.

Of course, in this country, jury nullification has an even more annoying aspect. In the case that I cited, the issue of "reasonable doubt" did not come up. But sometimes it does, such as in the OJ Simpson case. Here, "reasonable doubt" was used as an excuse for jury nullification. That makes me wonder about the entire idea of using juries as determiners of fact. I think if we want to allow a jury to let a guilty person go free, we should first make sure the accused is actually guilty! And that means letting some folks other than the nullifiers determine the facts.

In this book, Philip Howard points out that the role of a jury is to inform the Court of the facts. Of course, he's right. And he is discussing the contrast with the role of the judge, which is to answer questions of law. But my point is that we won't have a justice system at all unless questions of fact are resolved, and that jury nullification forces us to skip this step. I was hoping to see more comments on this point in the book.

Howard did at least make the point that we need to stop juries from making whimsical decisions on matters of law as well.

The first section of the book deals with the concept of "reasonable doubt" specifically. Next is a section on "equal justice." And after that, there's a section called "quest for truth." There's plenty of interesting material here. But I wanted to see far more on ideas to get truth to play a much bigger role in our legal system. After all, without truth, there can't be justice! Some of the contributors did not mind the fact that OJ Simpson got away with murder, reasoning that a system that would convict him would also convict some innocent people. I think those contributors are totally wrong. OJ Simpson went free because the system was no good; I think such a bad system will generally convict more, not fewer, innocent people.

There is also a section on the media and the justice system. And there's a section on protecting victims. Following that is a section called "punishment in America."

The penultimate section deals with some rather serious crimes, such as the Armenian genocide and Serbian crimes against Bosnia. Again, I want to see more emphasis on truth here. For example, although I see a need for justice in such crimes, I am strongly against any international criminal tribunals. I believe such tribunals tend to degenerate into kangaroo courts that ignore the guilty while trying and punishing the innocent. If there were more value placed on truth, along with some checks and balances to prevent such perversions of justice, I would be less leery of such courts.

I enjoyed this book even though I strongly disagreed with a great deal of what the contributors had to say. It addresses a wide range of important issues. But it should have given more advice on how to make truth a more important aspect of legal decisions, and I'm deducting a star for that.
MARK BEN FORD
Excellent, interesting and informative reading. Most of these essays/chapters are very thought provoking.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Letters and Essays from the Famous and Infamous on the True Legal Definition of Guilt in America's Courtrooms download epub
Criminal Law
Author: Brian Williams,Sh Engemann,Larry King
ISBN: 1597771244
Category: Law
Subcategory: Criminal Law
Language: English
Publisher: Phoenix Audio (September 1, 2007)