legalpanther
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2010
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard that the prosecution must meet for a conviction of any criminal offense. One must remember this is not any doubt, but reasonable doubt. That is doubt that is likely. (IE--The defense presents evidence that another person with motive and opportunity commited the crime--assuming this evidence is believed vs. aliens came down from the sky to comit the crime).
This standard is designed to be a very high burden to meet. Specifically, it is designed to be in line with the phrase it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be convicted. The reason, you are going to deprive the man found guilty of his god given freedoms.
In the civil arena, in most cases, the standard is by the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, more likely than not. Even stated another way, if you are more than 50% sure, then you find in favor of that party. The reason this is low is that you are depriving a person of money, not his god given liberties.
There is a second standard in the civil arena, clear and convincing evidence. This standard is for more serious civil cases--fraud and the like, because there are larger punishemnts to go along with being found liable. Clear and convincing is greater than a perponderance, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
But again, always remember this, it is better to allow 100 guilty men go free than it is to convict an innocent man.
This standard is designed to be a very high burden to meet. Specifically, it is designed to be in line with the phrase it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be convicted. The reason, you are going to deprive the man found guilty of his god given freedoms.
In the civil arena, in most cases, the standard is by the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, more likely than not. Even stated another way, if you are more than 50% sure, then you find in favor of that party. The reason this is low is that you are depriving a person of money, not his god given liberties.
There is a second standard in the civil arena, clear and convincing evidence. This standard is for more serious civil cases--fraud and the like, because there are larger punishemnts to go along with being found liable. Clear and convincing is greater than a perponderance, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
But again, always remember this, it is better to allow 100 guilty men go free than it is to convict an innocent man.