Beyond Any Doubt

[William Anthony]

There has been some discussion on this board related to the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It frequented my mind that the two concepts are inconsistent. If an accused maintains the presumption and the prosecution must prove the charges they brought against him, then an intelligent argument can be made that it requires proof beyond any doubt to obtain a conviction. When viewed in light of the fundamental concept of our judicial system, that it is better to let a thousand guilty go free than to convict one innocent, it only makes sense that the proof should be beyond any doubt. I would like to hear the thoughts of other posters on this. I am not looking to spark an argument, just wanting to know how others feel that prove beyond a reasonable doubt is justified. I am sure there is case law on that subject, but I am asking for feelings/opinions, not law.

[tv]

William, it would seem me that the only proof beyond all doubt would have to be eyewitness testimony of the actual crime. Then if there were only one witness, his truthfulness would be called into question. I guess I'm saying that I'm not sure anything beyond a reasonable doubt should be required. :)

[Kate Sachel]

I've always stryggled with "beyond a reasonable doubt" simply because I believe that most human beings consider themselves to be reasonable and thus any doubt they have is assumed in their minds to be reasonable as well.

However, "beyond any doubt" is a standard that I'm not particularly comfortable with either because it's a burden that even the best scientist cannot meet.

I look forward to going into more detail on this topic later on, and will try to do so when I arrive home this evening.

Kate

[martin II]

william
what i have wondered is if the defendant has the presumption of innocense
at the start of the trial,why is it that a not guilty verdict does not relate to the defendant being innocent.

If the standard was beyond any doubt then the court would have to accept only scientific proof imo and not every witness would be able to give this type proof. In some cases even eye witness testimony is based on what the witness thought or believes he/she saw.

Maby the issue is,exactly what is proof beyond any doubt? How does one get to that.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

William, it would seem me that the only proof beyond all doubt would have to be eyewitness testimony of the actual crime. Then if there were only one witness, his truthfulness would be called into question. I guess I'm saying that I'm not sure anything beyond a reasonable doubt should be required. :)

Tv,

I understand but the concept is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and, if we are to uphold the standard of proof it is only reasonable that there be no doubt as to a person's guilt in order to allow that one innocent person not be convicted. Of course, a witness' credibility will always be judged and that means that a jury must conclude that the witness' testimony was 100% credible. This would to me mean that there would be no more saying we found the witness 75% credible and the opposing witness 70% credible. It would be an all or nothing proposition to convict a person, which I think is more aligned with the presumption and the proof required.

[William Anthony]

I've always stryggled with "beyond a reasonable doubt" simply because I believe that most human beings consider themselves to be reasonable and thus any doubt they have is assumed in their minds to be reasonable as well.

However, "beyond any doubt" is a standard that I'm not particularly comfortable with either because it's a burden that even the best scientist cannot meet.

I look forward to going into more detail on this topic later on, and will try to do so when I arrive home this evening.

Kate

I understand your concerns. However, if you look to my post answering Tv, I think the same principle would hold true for an expert. I understand that a lot more guilty may go free, but is liberty of the innocent worth that price.

[William Anthony]

william
what i have wondered is if the defendant has the presumption of innocense
at the start of the trial,why is it that a not guilty verdict does not relate to the defendant being innocent.

If the standard was beyond any doubt then the court would have to accept only scientific proof imo and not every witness would be able to give this type proof. In some cases even eye witness testimony is based on what the witness thought or believes he/she saw.

Maby the issue is,exactly what is proof beyond any doubt? How does one get to that.imo
martin II

Martin,

I think that the proceedure would be the same, but the difference is that the prosecution and its witnesses would be held to a higher standard, and, in so doing, may well enhance the caliber of trials.

[William Anthony]

Given the fact that the two paramount priorities in the Preamble are life and liberty, which an accused in a capital case is facing deprivation of both, I am seeking to know which standard should the court use when the accused has the presumption and his rights are the things that tilt the scale supposedly in his favor, or do you think the accused rights should be diminished.

[martin II]

Given the fact that the two paramount priorities in the Preamble are life and liberty, which an accused in a capital case is facing deprivation of both, I am seeking to know which standard should the court use when the accused has the presumption and his rights are the things that tilt the scale supposedly in his favor, or do you think the accused rights should be diminished.


William
In no way do i believe a citizens/defendant's rights should be diminished.

martin II

[William Anthony]

William
In no way do i believe a citizens/defendant's rights should be diminished.

martin II

Martin,

There is a seeming oddity in the law. Libel and slander must be proven by a clear and convincing standard, which is higher than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It would appear that a man's name is worth more than his life and liberty in the law. Should they not be at least equal in the eyes of the law or should not deprivation of life and/or liberty require a higher standard than libel or slander? I agree with your post. This case is an excellent example of the oddities in the law. Simpson has not been found guilty of murder, yet people call him that based on the least legal standard, preponderance of the evidence, without any regard for the clear and convincing standard.

Some say a good name is worth its weight in gold and this has proven true in Simpson's case. Does one group of Americans place more value on wealth than life and liberty, while another group relishes life and liberty? Is this why some, because Simpson has lost his ability to maintain his lifestyle, are so eager to call him a murderer, even though it was not proven to a clear and convincing standard. I know some will say the civil trial (I will not say political production) proved to a clear and convincing standard that he was the murderer. However, there were some calling him a murderer before the civil trial began. If the prosecution was required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, do you think that this would stop some from calling him a murderer, if the prosecution failed? Would it cause more people to call him a murderer, if the prosecution failed? Will there come a time when people will accept a verdict, even though they believe it to be wrong and respect our judicial system or is our judicial system worthy of the disrespect? Would not requiring proof beyond any doubt raise the caliber of our judicial system?

[tv]

Martin,

There is a seeming oddity in the law. Libel and slander must be proven by a clear and convincing standard, which is higher than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It would appear that a man's name is worth more than his life and liberty in the law. Should they not be at least equal in the eyes of the law or should not deprivation of life and/or liberty require a higher standard than libel or slander? I agree with your post. This case is an excellent example of the oddities in the law. Simpson has not been found guilty of murder, yet people call him that based on the least legal standard, preponderance of the evidence, without any regard for the clear and convincing standard.

Some say a good name is worth its weight in gold and this has proven true in Simpson's case. Does one group of Americans place more value on wealth than life and liberty, while another group relishes life and liberty? Is this why some, because Simpson has lost his ability to maintain his lifestyle, are so eager to call him a murderer, even though it was not proven to a clear and convincing standard. I know some will say the civil trial (I will not say political production) proved to a clear and convincing standard that he was the murderer. However, there were some calling him a murderer before the civil trial began. If the prosecution was required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, do you think that this would stop some from calling him a murderer, if the prosecution failed? Would it cause more people to call him a murderer, if the prosecution failed? Will there come a time when people will accept a verdict, even though they believe it to be wrong and respect our judicial system or is our judicial system worthy of the disrespect? Would not requiring proof beyond any doubt raise the caliber of our judicial system?William, I think any reasonable thinking person would put life and liberty before wealth. Who comprises this group that you're referring to that thinks OJ Simpson is guilty because he's lost his ability to maintain his former lifestyle? Also, what loss of lifestyle? I'm sure he lives very well on his NFL pension, not to mention all the off-shore assets that martin claims he has. It's my opinion that both trials proved OJ Simpson is a double-murderer and that the civil trial proved it beyond what was required.

[martin II]

tv

I believe loss of ones lifestyle includes ones ability to work in his/her previous
profession and not be black balled because the powers that be decide that they will not respect the criminal trial verdict because it was not what they thought it should have been. It includes ones ability to eat at any resturant
and not be confronted as oj was in that steak house.Life style goes beyond the simple ability to pay ones bills and eat.
There is no comparrison beyond oj's lefestyle prior to the trial and what he experiences now.

I do wonder if the level of proof in the criminal trial had been "without any doubt", would this have caused the people that think he was guilty to accept
the not guilty verdict more. I believe the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt may be difficult for some to grasp.

I also believe that some are not pleased that oj is able to receive this pension
that is beyond attack for debt as they would rather see him broke and homeless on the streets. I am not sure what causes this reaction in some but i do feel that this group seems to believe that the laws that protect all people, in a state like Florida, should not be available to him. OJ is not the only person that moved to Florida to take advantage of their laws that protects debetors. imo
martin II

[weezer]

odd that you think orenthal is entitled to continue his 'lifestyle' but you bashed Nicole for not wanting to change hers. hmmm --

the majority of people who believe orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole believe that 'without any doubt' -- two trials proved orenthal to be the murderer of two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

I don't believe orenthal running to florida to get out of paying the judgement is the issue. I believe it is his continued 'in your face', classless, irresponsible, slimey actions that have made people angry. imo

[martin II]

odd that you think orenthal is entitled to continue his 'lifestyle' but you bashed Nicole for not wanting to change hers. hmmm --

the majority of people who believe orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole believe that 'without any doubt' -- two trials proved orenthal to be the murderer of two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

I don't believe orenthal running to florida to get out of paying the judgement is the issue. I believe it is his continued 'in your face', classless, irresponsible, slimey actions that have made people angry. imo


odd that you make moral judgements on oj for his extra affairs and become upset when testinmony about nicoles activity is posted.

Oj has a right to work to make money regardless of how you see his actions.

It is the media or companies like HC and FOX TV and others that desires that his work be put in front of the public. As a matter of fact it is Fred that is trying very hard to put oj's work "in your face" and you seem to be quite pleased with that.
I don't think the public has been asked if they believe oj is guilty BEYOND ANY DOUBT. so i am not sure where you got that bit of info from. But if you can prove it please feel free to do so.
imo
martin II

thanks.

[tv]

tv

I believe loss of ones lifestyle includes ones ability to work in his/her previous
profession and not be black balled because the powers that be decide that they will not respect the criminal trial verdict because it was not what they thought it should have been. It includes ones ability to eat at any resturant
and not be confronted as oj was in that steak house.Life style goes beyond the simple ability to pay ones bills and eat.
There is no comparrison beyond oj's lefestyle prior to the trial and what he experiences now.

I do wonder if the level of proof in the criminal trial had been "without any doubt", would this have caused the people that think he was guilty to accept
the not guilty verdict more. I believe the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt may be difficult for some to grasp.

I also believe that some are not pleased that oj is able to receive this pension
that is beyond attack for debt as they would rather see him broke and homeless on the streets. I am not sure what causes this reaction in some but i do feel that this group seems to believe that the laws that protect all people, in a state like Florida, should not be available to him. OJ is not the only person that moved to Florida to take advantage of their laws that protects debetors. imo
martin III can't speak for anyone else but I respect the criminal trial verdict. I don't agree with it but I also don't think it should be ignored and OJ Simpson thrown in jail. There are those that disagree with the civil verdict and think it's okay for OJ Simpson to circumvent the judgement. I don't know of anyone that wants to call OJ Simpson a murderer just because his lifestyle has changed. They call him a murderer because he is a murderer.

The restaurant owner is entitled to choose his lifestyle and it didn't include allowing someone to eat in his restaurant that killed the mother of his children. He was within his legal rights to ask him to leave.

I don't have a problem with him moving to Florida. It was done within the confines of the law just as Fred Goldman pursuing Simpson's income is done within the law. It's like weezer said, it's his shameless, tacky actions that anger people. He's the one that keeps controversy about himself stirred up. As I've said before, I don't think it's about him working and earning money. OJ Simpson loves being in the limelight and being OJ, imo.

[martin II]

I can't speak for anyone else but I respect the criminal trial verdict. I don't agree with it but I also don't think it should be ignored and OJ Simpson thrown in jail. There are those that disagree with the civil verdict and think it's okay for OJ Simpson to circumvent the judgement. I don't know of anyone that wants to call OJ Simpson a murderer just because his lifestyle has changed. They call him a murderer because he is a murderer.

The restaurant owner is entitled to choose his lifestyle and it didn't include allowing someone to eat in his restaurant that killed the mother of his children. He was within his legal rights to ask him to leave.

I don't have a problem with him moving to Florida. It was done within the confines of the law just as Fred Goldman pursuing Simpson's income is done within the law. It's like weezer said, it's his shameless, tacky actions that anger people. He's the one that keeps controversy about himself stirred up. As I've said before, I don't think it's about him working and earning money. OJ Simpson loves being in the limelight and being OJ, imo.

It just so happens that work available to him is work that involves various media and that is what he knows. I doub't that he is concerned with the opinions of some that think he is in the media too much.


If the media type compaines did not ask for his participation in these various events he could not do any of them. However they see a profit to be made
and customers for these type products.Oj has limited work availalbe to him because some think he was guilty and desire to punish him in their own way.
I think he would be foolish to allow these people to dictate what he does because of their feelings.imo
martin II

[weezer]

It just so happens that work available to him is work that involves various media and that is what he knows. I doub't that he is concerned with the opinions of some that think he is in the media too much.


If the media type compaines did not ask for his participation in these various events he could not do any of them. However they see a profit to be made
and customers for these type products.Oj has limited work availalbe to him because some think he was guilty and desire to punish him in their own way.
I think he would be foolish to allow these people to dictate what he does because of their feelings.imo
martin II

it's been 13 years -- I think that he's had more than enough time to have found something to do (educate, re-educate, train) that would not require him to be in the media. imo

IIRC, ssn't that what you thought Nicole should have done?

[martin II]

that's it martin -- bash the victims. :no:

Again

posting testimony about any individual is not bashing. it is a fact that sometine after decorating Marchs Allens and his wife/girlfriends house, Nicole had a ongoing intimate relationship Marcus. That lasted UNTIL some days before someone killed her.

Wonder what his wife felt about her when she found out.

Other than that she remained for 17 years without any work.

MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

William, I think any reasonable thinking person would put life and liberty before wealth. Who comprises this group that you're referring to that thinks OJ Simpson is guilty because he's lost his ability to maintain his former lifestyle? Also, what loss of lifestyle? I'm sure he lives very well on his NFL pension, not to mention all the off-shore assets that martin claims he has. It's my opinion that both trials proved OJ Simpson is a double-murderer and that the civil trial proved it beyond what was required.

You are surely entitled to your opinion. However, I was asking questions related to our system of jurisprudence and not trying to start an argument. I was not asking what people thought the trials proved or did not prove. I was speaking of what the verdicts meant and people's unwilingness to accept them combined with the oddity in the law, which seemingly places a more stringent standard of proof on smearing someone's reputation thatn deprivation of life and liberty.

The endoresements that were taken from him, as well as his future earning capacity was what I speaking of. The Great Depression tells us that many comitted suicide than face life as a pauper. However, other lived life as less than paupers and survived. Those who have seem to care more about possessions and wealth than life and liberty and those who do not have been deprived seem to care more about life and liberty, imho.

[William Anthony]

I can't speak for anyone else but I respect the criminal trial verdict. I don't agree with it but I also don't think it should be ignored and OJ Simpson thrown in jail. There are those that disagree with the civil verdict and think it's okay for OJ Simpson to circumvent the judgement. I don't know of anyone that wants to call OJ Simpson a murderer just because his lifestyle has changed. They call him a murderer because he is a murderer.

The restaurant owner is entitled to choose his lifestyle and it didn't include allowing someone to eat in his restaurant that killed the mother of his children. He was within his legal rights to ask him to leave.

I don't have a problem with him moving to Florida. It was done within the confines of the law just as Fred Goldman pursuing Simpson's income is done within the law. It's like weezer said, it's his shameless, tacky actions that anger people. He's the one that keeps controversy about himself stirred up. As I've said before, I don't think it's about him working and earning money. OJ Simpson loves being in the limelight and being OJ, imo.

Tv,

I am glad to hear that you accept the criminal verdict. I would think that someone who accepted the verdict, even though they disagreed with it, would say I believe he is a murderer and not that he is a murderer.:)

I have no comment at present on the eatery owner.

I am pleased to hear that there are some who realize that Simpson was in his legal rights to relocate. There were those who called him a murderer and were outraged and spoke of playing the race card, during the trial before the verdict long before Simpson acted shameless or tacky, and those sort of statement continued before and during the civil trial. I will say that his behavior may have contributed to the already exisiting situation.

[tv]

You are surely entitled to your opinion. However, I was asking questions related to our system of jurisprudence and not trying to start an argument. I was not asking what people thought the trials proved or did not prove. I was speaking of what the verdicts meant and people's unwilingness to accept them combined with the oddity in the law, which seemingly places a more stringent standard of proof on smearing someone's reputation thatn deprivation of life and liberty.

The endoresements that were taken from him, as well as his future earning capacity was what I speaking of. The Great Depression tells us that many comitted suicide than face life as a pauper. However, other lived life as less than paupers and survived. Those who have seem to care more about possessions and wealth than life and liberty and those who do not have been deprived seem to care more about life and liberty, imho.I understand the original intention of this thread. I was responding to another poster's statements and not attempting to start an argument. :)

William, OJS did lose endorsements and potential earnings but the endorsements were withdrawn or not offered by the corporations not mandated by law. That's the natural fall-out from being involved in a criminal or civil action such as these trials. There is a man in our town that owns a hardware store whose wife was killed in their home. The killer said the business man paid him to do it. He was found not guilty at trial but his business has never been the same and he's lost a lot of respect in the community. I think freedom is more valued by most everyone over wealth and possessions. In most cases, you can't have the wealth and possessions without the freedom. Do you think if he'd been found not liable in the civil trial that his life would be any different?

[William Anthony]

I understand the original intention of this thread. I was responding to another poster's statements and not attempting to start an argument. :)

William, OJS did lose endorsements and potential earnings but the endorsements were withdrawn or not offered by the corporations not mandated by law. That's the natural fall-out from being involved in a criminal or civil action such as these trials. There is a man in our town that owns a hardware store whose wife was killed in their home. The killer said the business man paid him to do it. He was found not guilty at trial but his business has never been the same and he's lost a lot of respect in the community. I think freedom is more valued by most everyone over wealth and possessions. In most cases, you can't have the wealth and possessions without the freedom. Do you think if he'd been found not liable in the civil trial that his life would be any different?

Tv,

I was not trying to start or engage in an argument.:) What I am saying is that, if the standard in a criminal trial was proof beyond any doubt, which is what I believe it was originally intended to be, then there would be more respect for the judicial process and proceedure, because not only would people understand the prosecution's burden but also the value of life and liberty as meant in the Preamble. I think it would raise the repect for the judicial system and the caliber of the lawyering.

This may have stopped some of what the man in your town endured, rightly or wrongly. What I am speaking of is the fact, that although someone maintains their freedom, because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was guilty, some name that person even though the name requires a higher burden of proof, which, imho, shows a disrepect for the judicial process, whether or not such disrespect is deserved.

You are correct that you cannot have the wealth without the freedom to earn. :)

[tv]

Tv,

I am glad to hear that you accept the criminal verdict. I would think that someone who accepted the verdict, even though they disagreed with it, would say I believe he is a murderer and not that he is a murderer.:)

I have no comment at present on the eatery owner.

I am pleased to hear that there are some who realize that Simpson was in his legal rights to relocate. There were those who called him a murderer and were outraged and spoke of playing the race card, during the trial before the verdict long before Simpson acted shameless or tacky, and those sort of statement continued before and during the civil trial. I will say that his behavior may have contributed to the already exisiting situation.William, I call OJ Simpson a murderer because it's easier to say than oppressor and batterer with malice resulting in the death of Ron Goldman (and Nicole by following that line of thought). ;)

I started watching the criminal trial thinking that OJS was most likely not guilty. As I heard and saw evidence my opinion changed. I think race was made an issue; it was the only option the defense had because they had no way to counter all the evidence that pointed to him being the murderer. I wasn't a member of the jury so I see nothing wrong with stating an opinion on guilty or not guilty before or after the verdict came down. I don't base my opinion on his guilt on his tacky and shameless actions, just on the evidence and some of his behavior before and after both trials. Some (not all) of the negative feelings against him might die down if he acted like a mature, serious individual instead of engaging in these lurid money-making ventures.

I've stated before that I believe he has every right to work and earn money and to live in Florida where he has some legal protection but the law also gives Fred Goldman the right to pursue satisfaction of the civil judgement. Do you think that civil trials should require more for a liable verdict than a preponderance of the evidence?

[martin II]

i am rrminded of a politician that was accused of a crime but was found not guilty and he held a press conefance and asked the prosctution 'WHERE DO I GO TO GET ME REPUTATION BACK"

If OJ had been found not liable in the civil trial it is very possible that some would have blammed the civil the jury as they did the criminal jury and would have continued to believe that they know the truth.This may be the unique feature because of who the defendant was.

If the standard had been beyond any doubt and he was found not guilty i am not sure if in this cases, it would have changed many minds.

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

William, I call OJ Simpson a murderer because it's easier to say than oppressor and batterer with malice resulting in the death of Ron Goldman (and Nicole by following that line of thought). ;)

I started watching the criminal trial thinking that OJS was most likely not guilty. As I heard and saw evidence my opinion changed. I think race was made an issue; it was the only option the defense had because they had no way to counter all the evidence that pointed to him being the murderer. I wasn't a member of the jury so I see nothing wrong with stating an opinion on guilty or not guilty before or after the verdict came down. I don't base my opinion on his guilt on his tacky and shameless actions, just on the evidence and some of his behavior before and after both trials. Some (not all) of the negative feelings against him might die down if he acted like a mature, serious individual instead of engaging in these lurid money-making ventures.

I've stated before that I believe he has every right to work and earn money and to live in Florida where he has some legal protection but the law also gives Fred Goldman the right to pursue satisfaction of the civil judgement. Do you think that civil trials should require more for a liable verdict than a preponderance of the evidence?

I am only speaking to what the verdict states. I am not speaking to people's opinions, per se, except when they state them as facts. I have no problem with Simpson or Goldman pursuing their legal options.

Race was made an issue by the notorious convicted perjurer, MF. A witness ability to tell the truth is an issue in any trial. I watched the same trial and saw the defense destroying the evidence without the notorious MF testifying.

To answer to questions in one, I think that the preponderance and clear and convincing should be done away with, and the standards should be civil-beyond a reasonable doubt, criminal incarcerations and captial cases-beyond any doubt, and I do believe that it would not have been any different for Simpson, if the civil verdict was not liable.

[weezer]

O.J. Unmasked; Rantala; p206:

"In the immediate aftermath of the 1995 verdict in the criminal case there was much talk about 'reasonable doubt', and it soon became clear that misconceptions abounded.

It was very commonly held that a person was the sole arbiter of whether there was reasonable doubt. This misunderstanding was sometimes betrayed by the use of the verb have, as in 'they had a reasonable doubt'. But whether the doubt is reasonable or not is independent of one's feelings. Marcia Clark had it right when she referred to 'a doubt that is founded in reason':
The question is whether you have a doubt that is founded in reason, so beware of the efforts to get you to accept the unreasonable, be distracted by the irrelevant and to base your decision on speculation, or mere possibilities with no hard evidence to show that any of them really occured.

It follows that a person could be mistaken about the status of their doubt - could harbor an unreasonable doubt and wrongly believe it to be reasonable. This suggests that the inquirer, for example the juror, has a responsibility to investigate whether any doubt is, as a matter of objective fact, reasonable. In the context of the Simpson case, the only alternative to Simpson's guilt is a police conspiracy, and therefore a reasonable doubt about Simpson's guilt must imply that it is reasonable to entertain the possibility of a police conspiracy."

[martin II]

i believe that a great deal of the reasonable doubt held by the jury was based on conflicting prosecution witness testimony and some expert witness testimony that was not believable. I think the defense did a great job in this area. i don't think it was all based on furhman's lie and the tape.

I also believe that civil trials should have a higher standard of proof requirement.

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

O.J. Unmasked; Rantala; p206:

"In the immediate aftermath of the 1995 verdict in the criminal case there was much talk about 'reasonable doubt', and it soon became clear that misconceptions abounded.

It was very commonly held that a person was the sole arbiter of whether there was reasonable doubt. This misunderstanding was sometimes betrayed by the use of the verb have, as in 'they had a reasonable doubt'. But whether the doubt is reasonable or not is independent of one's feelings. Marcia Clark had it right when she referred to 'a doubt that is founded in reason':
The question is whether you have a doubt that is founded in reason, so beware of the efforts to get you to accept the unreasonable, be distracted by the irrelevant and to base your decision on speculation, or mere possibilities with no hard evidence to show that any of them really occured.

It follows that a person could be mistaken about the status of their doubt - could harbor an unreasonable doubt and wrongly believe it to be reasonable. This suggests that the inquirer, for example the juror, has a responsibility to investigate whether any doubt is, as a matter of objective fact, reasonable. In the context of the Simpson case, the only alternative to Simpson's guilt is a police conspiracy, and therefore a reasonable doubt about Simpson's guilt must imply that it is reasonable to entertain the possibility of a police conspiracy."

That is one person's opinion of what reasonable doubt is. I was asking whether ther should be a higher standard to convict and deprive a person of their life and liberty. The idea of a police conspiracy is not the element to reasonable doubt. The element is that the evidence could not be trusted and the conspiracy is only an explanation as to the many flaws in the evidence, imho. The idea of a conspiracy is not necessary to prove a reasonable doubt about evidence that cannot be trusted. The reasonable doubt is sufficient in and of itself. This thread was not intended to be a discussion about reasonable doubt but whether a higher standard in necessary for criminal charges that carry a loss of life and liberty.

[martin II]

That is one person's opinion of what reasonable doubt is. I was asking whether ther should be a higher standard to convict and deprive a person of their life and liberty. The idea of a police conspiracy is not the element to reasonable doubt. The element is that the evidence could not be trusted and the conspiracy is only an explanation as to the many flaws in the evidence, imho. The idea of a conspiracy is not necessary to prove a reasonable doubt about evidence that cannot be trusted. The reasonable doubt is sufficient in and of itself. This thread was not intended to be a discussion about reasonable doubt but whether a higher standard in necessary for criminal charges that carry a loss of life and liberty.

william
Thanks for clearing that issue up and helping to keep the question in focus.
I believe that a higher standard of proof in criminal trials would require a more efficent crime scene investigaiton by le and a more organized presentation
of evidence by the prosecution. I believe it would reduce instances where the prosecution presents weak 'PROOF' to the jury and expect them to accept conflicting testimony from their experts .

I think proof beyond any doubt is a easier concept for juries to understand.
Considering how high the prison population is in America and how many people have been released because if dna evidence i believe proof beyond any doubt would correct some of these flawed convictions.
The purpose is not to see how many can we convict but to do all possible to make sure that those convicted were convicted fairly.imo
martin II

imo
martin II

[weezer]

there is no such thing as resonable or beyond or no 'doubt' --

[William Anthony]

there is no such thing as resonable or beyond or no 'doubt' --

There is in criminal trials proof beyond a reasonable doubt, with which I will agree that there is no clear concept of what that is. Therefore, I must agree that the standard should be raised to proof beyond any doubt. The question that started the thread had notihing to do with what is, but was concerned as to what should be.

[weezer]

There is in criminal trials proof beyond a reasonable doubt, with which I will agree that there is no clear concept of what that is. Therefore, I must agree that the standard should be raised to proof beyond any doubt. The question that started the thread had notihing to do with what is, but was concerned as to what should be.

You are left with the same issue if a person is the sole arbiter of whether there is 'beyond' reasonable doubt or 'reasonable' doubt or 'no' doubt. As long as you have human beings deciding an issue -- persuasive attorneys can and do manipulate juries. imo

[William Anthony]

that's a silly concept. You are left with the same issue if a person is the sole arbiter of whether there is 'beyond' reasonable doubt. imo

Oh, contraire, it is not silly when one thinks of the value of life and liberty. It would require the prosecution to prove its case beyond any doubt, whether that doubt be reasonable or not. I can anticipate the argument that it would promote more crime, because of the heightened standard of proof. However, I am not convinced that is the case. I think it would require, as Matin rightly suggested, a more scupulous investigation, more pristine evidence and a superior quality of lawyering. I think that, if these things are put into place, then those inclined to commit crimes would think harder befor committing crimes, especially if the sentences for convictions were also increased. However, that calls into account those individuals who have been institutionalized. I would suggest that for those, in order to protect society, when one is convicted of a second criminal offense of a violent nature, that the individual be given life, under the hightened standard of proof beyond any doubt.

[weezer]

Oh, contraire, it is not silly when one thinks of the value of life and liberty. It would require the prosecution to prove its case beyond any doubt, whether that doubt be reasonable or not. I can anticipate the argument that it would promote more crime, because of the heightened standard of proof. However, I am not convinced that is the case. I think it would require, as Matin rightly suggested, a more scupulous investigation, more pristine evidence and a superior quality of lawyering. I think that, if these things are put into place, then those inclined to commit crimes would think harder befor committing crimes, especially if the sentences for convictions were also increased. However, that calls into account those individuals who have been institutionalized. I would suggest that for those, in order to protect society, when one is convicted of a second criminal offense of a violent nature, that the individual be given life, under the hightened standard of proof beyond any doubt.

what exactly is 'scupulous'?

[William Anthony]

what exactly is 'scupulous'?

A typo. Are you the resident English moderator?

[weezer]

A typo. Are you the resident English moderator?

LOL -- nah -- just trying to figure out your post. What is the word suppose to be?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- nah -- just trying to figure out your post. What is the word suppose to be?

scrupulous-careful research, characterized by painstaken effort, a skilled craftsman-meaning not sloppy handled crime scences, evidence collection and booking. Is it clear now, :) ?

[weezer]

scrupulous-careful research, characterized by painstaken effort, a skilled craftsman-meaning not sloppy handled crime scences, evidence collection and booking. Is it clear now, :) ?

no need to get testy -- I was simply trying to understand your post.

[William Anthony]

no need to get testy -- I was simply trying to understand your post.

Now, I know that you do not understand my personality. I strive for clarity and would not get testy if someone asked for it, as evidenced by the smile. In fact. on the other threads, I have not raced to judge people but look to other reasons as an altenate explanation for the derogatory adjectives people use to describe others, such as members of the criminal jury. I do not think that I have used derogatory adjectives about the civil jury but I have questioned their motivation. In fact, I am pleased that you asked for clarification and did not say I was wrong. I see that you also did that in response to my use of the term, res ipsa loquitur and I thank you for correcting my spelling of the term. When I become testy, I promise to let you know, :).

[martin II]

what exactly is 'scupulous'?

that is a very bad habit you seem to have. always trying to correct people for typos. imo it shows a mean streak of some kind and it is not necessary on this message board.imo


martinII

[weezer]

that is a very bad habit you seem to have. always trying to correct people for typos. imo it shows a mean streak of some kind and it is not necessary on this message board.imo


martinII

actually, it's a concerted effort. I need to know the word in order to understand the post. sorry you think it's mean.

[martin II]

actually, it's a concerted effort. I need to know the word in order to understand the post. sorry you think it's mean.

all too often you send time acting as the spell checker on others post especially when you appear to be not pleased with another persons post. that is my opinion and i believe it to be childish behavior.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

actually, it's a concerted effort. I need to know the word in order to understand the post. sorry you think it's mean.

all too often you spend time acting as the spell checker on others post especially when you appear to be not pleased with another persons post. that is my opinion and i believe it to be childish behavior.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

hahaha -- sorry --- hahaha

[Athena]

As a person who followed the OJ trial on a daily basis I have to say that IMO the jury reached the only conclusion they could have. The defense did a great job at nipping away at the blood evidence, the timeline, etc. and I could not have convicted him based on what I saw and heard. There was conflicting testimony from eye witnesses and the chain of evidence was questionable. What officer walks around with a vial of blood and doesn't turn it in until the next day? I was in disbelief at some of the testimony that came out of this trial and this was before the "race" card was played. I honestly don't even believe they needed it - it was just the icing on a cake that was already baked.

As far as experts go, I have been a juror on two criminal cases in which one of them, the experts just totally wiped each other out and when we deliberated their whole testimony was moot and after discussing it a bit it was not even considered.

What a juror opines is so different from rendering a verdict based on the evidence presented. I've said this before and will say it again in OJ's case, "the LAPD tried to frame a guilty man" and it backfired. IMO the jurors conclusion was correct.

[weezer]

*Snipped* ". . .As a person who followed the OJ trial on a daily basis. . . What officer walks around with a vial of blood and doesn't turn it in until the next day?"

LOL -- and I had started to take you seriously. ;)

[Athena]

LOL -- and I had started to take you seriously. ;)

I hear ya fbg...... and I understand what you are thinking. But you have to remember all of this became clear AFTER the trial not during. The fact that Vanatter took OJ"s blood (which OJ gave willingly) and drove across town to give it to Fung? to book into evidence left reasonable doubt as to what he could have done with the blood in between. And let's face it, Fung was not the best during his testimony. He actually appeared (in hindsight) like he was helping OJ out. This is why in my post I said the defense did a great job at nipping at the evidence creating doubt. It wasn't until AFTER the trial that I found out that traces of EDTA are in EVERYONE's blood but again this is something that was not attacked properly by the prosecution and their expert and they let the defense's explanation stand. As good a job as Clark and Darden attempted to do -- the defense team just shredded them. And let's not even get into the glove; if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

I think the biggest mistake with the prosecution was making everything too "scientific" with too many charts instead of just presenting it in "layman's terms". It left alot of doubt and confusion in those jurors' minds and the defense knew exactly what they were doing. Even Lee's comments "something not right" helped. JMO

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=Athena;8986658 It wasn't until AFTER the trial that I found out that traces of EDTA are in EVERYONE's blood but again this is something that was not attacked properly by the prosecution and their expert and they let the defense's explanation stand. JMO[/QUOTE]


Athena,

I agree with most of your post. However, I recently found some information that makes me disagree with the above portion,

There may be traces of EDTA in everyone's blood but, at the time that the evidence was presented, no tests had been developed to detect the amount of EDTA in unpreserved human blood. That is why in the civil trial the defense lawyer made the argument, which was unrefuted, that there should have been no detectable amounts of EDTA found in the m socks and gate stains. New more sensitive tests in 1997 showed that the defense lawyer's argument was correct. Therefore, although Martz and the prosecution called the amount/concentration of EDTA Martz found as trace, the evidence is that the amount was far to massive to have been unpreserved blood. Therefore, a scientist, who had never before testified as an expert, was called to say that the results Martz found were caused by a ghost in the machine.

[martin II]

Getting back to Anthony's original question, "any" doubt is an impossible standard to meet but, at the same time, American juries seem to have a great deal of trouble with the phrase"beyond a reasonable doubt". It just doesn't compute. We hear it nowhere else in our lives, and as a result, juries appear to chew on it a while and then abandon it and settle for trying to figure out which side won the case the court. AS a result, DNA is turning up a host of innocent men on death rows all over the counrty and serving life sentences for crimes they had nothing to do with. I know of two such famous men off the top of my head.
Judges should take more time with juries (if we can find some unbiased judges) and explain the phrase so that it is clear.
"Reasonable doubt" means that a jury has one question to ask itself :do I know he did it? and if the answer is anything else but "yes", they must be made to understand they are obliged to vote for aquittal.
I believe the ambiguity of this phrase is a major factor in the flood of false convictions we are uncovering in the U.S.
Heaven knows how many of these people we must have excecuted!
Come to think of it, Heaven probably does.

very good ideas. Some states are killing more than others.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

My point, for this paper, however, is that in all of the events involving black men, cultural common senses transformed the men into racialised and sexualised beings who were also criminalised, a transformation that was both reflected, and perhaps created, by the media reports of the events'

For example, the media presented O.J. Simpson as a "black man out of control" (Fiske, 1996, p. 256). While whiteness, culturally, is usually unmarked, in the instance of the trial of O.J. Simpson for murder, the whiteness of the victims was very apparent through the social representations deployed by the media. What happened was that the media had the whiteness of the victims at the forefront of the reporting of the case -- not through direct comments but through reference to their pictures, their families, - while underplaying the racism of another key white person - the racist detective Mark Fuhrman. At the same time, the media reports described the murders as "rage killings", that Simpson was a "burning fuse" and that "justice (for which read brutally killed white victims) was crying out".(NYT 28th September" Excerpts From Closing Charges Against O.J. Simpson).

The prosecutors also participated in reproducing this image of Simpson. For example, the prosecution team, led by a white woman, drew upon prevailing cultural common senses about black men as emotional and uncontrolled people, while simultaneously dismissing the incontrovertible fact of police misconduct by arguing that "Everybody knows he killed - everybody knows. The evidence is there" (Darden 1995, NYT30th September "Excerpts From Final Rebuttal Arguments by Prosecution").

My examination of the Closing Statements of this trial from which the quote in the title of this talk comes - it was said by Johnnie Cochrane, the lead defence lawyer - led me also to see that the issues highlighted by the prosecution and the defence in these statements seemed to differ in both content and style. . .

The prosecution stressed Nicole brown's domestic abuse at the hand of Mr. Simpson, the DNA evidence in a rather protracted and tedious manner, the brutality of the killings, and closed by stating that if he had beaten her, he was also capable of murdering her. While the prosecution did mention police misconduct and the racism of Mark Fuhrman, they did so only to argue that these issues were peripheral to the main DNA evidence, which they claimed proved that O.J. Simpson was the murderer. In reading those Closing Statements, one is rather struck by how much emotion the prosecution used to assert that he was the murderer. While the style of presentation was, at times, rather dry, tedious and ponderous, the content of their Closing Statements amounted to a demand for the jury to act in good faith towards the prosecution - namely, that they would never have taken this case on if they had not known he was the murderer, and inconsistencies in much of the evidence were not relevant to this central fact.

In contrast, and despite press reports to the contrary, the Defence Closing Statements focused on the evidence, and the inconsistencies within it. They explained the idea of "reasonable doubt", and linked this to the credibility of Mark Fuhrman - the racist detective who had been involved at the time of O.J. Simpson's arrest. This legal team also emphasised inconsistencies in key pieces of evidence such as the time line of the events around the murder, the glove not fitting Simpson despite it being a key element in the prosecution's case, and they also spent time in commiserating with the jury about their prolonged sequestration. In sum, although the style of speaking was rather flamboyant at times - "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit" - the Defence Closing Statements worked through all the evidentiary material, and claimed it showed there was more than a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. In other words, it was the Defence team who took the jury through step by step over the evidence, and showed the flaws in the prosecution's case.

In the LA Times and the New York Times, journalists argued the trial was about domestic abuse, police misconduct, judicial reform by bringing up the role of wealth in obtaining justice (not something that was done in the instance of WKS) and the need for non-unanimous jury verdicts, and victim's rights - that is discourses that were similar to those of the prosecution - and made almost no mention of racism.

http://www.criticalmethods.org/bodone.htm

[socaldiva]

What does a link from proceedings in Johannesburg, South Africa have to do with court proceedings in the United States? Are you attempting to create another racial thread?

[kjb19500]

Maybe the problem doesn't lie in either the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" but by the present day sytem of selecting juries. It's almost a joke in some communities that only the dumbest people actually serve on juries because of all the exemptions allowing the most qualified to serve. When is the last time anyone heard of a practicing physician, lawyer, engineer, etc. serving on a jury?

As in the Simpson trial, how can an individual with an average HS education or a few years college and no experience whatever in scientific pursuits, be expected to understand the intricacies of DNA or the meaning of a small amount of EDTA in a blood sample?

Also, the paltry reimbursement of jury members acts as a hardship equally on the poor/middle class (if not harder) than on a wealthier professional person.

The idea of jury duty should mean as much to our generation as it did to our ancestors. The only exemptions should be for serious medical conditions, not because it might stop someone from making $10,000 or $100,000 this week.

[martin II]

Maybe the problem doesn't lie in either the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" but by the present day sytem of selecting juries. It's almost a joke in some communities that only the dumbest people actually serve on juries because of all the exemptions allowing the most qualified to serve. When is the last time anyone heard of a practicing physician, lawyer, engineer, etc. serving on a jury?

As in the Simpson trial, how can an individual with an average HS education or a few years college and no experience whatever in scientific pursuits, be expected to understand the intricacies of DNA or the meaning of a small amount of EDTA in a blood sample?

Also, the paltry reimbursement of jury members acts as a hardship equally on the poor/middle class (if not harder) than on a wealthier professional person.

The idea of jury duty should mean as much to our generation as it did to our ancestors. The only exemptions should be for serious medical conditions, not because it might stop someone from making $10,000 or $100,000 this week.


kjb19500
i agree with your post but remember the jury is suppose to be made up of "regular average" citizens of the community. Any 12. no special requirements. Not just people with special skills/education to match the difficulty of the evidence.

We have many educated fools in the community too.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Maybe the problem doesn't lie in either the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" but by the present day sytem of selecting juries.

I agree with you.

[William Anthony]

Maybe the problem doesn't lie in either the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" but by the present day sytem of selecting juries. It's almost a joke in some communities that only the dumbest people actually serve on juries because of all the exemptions allowing the most qualified to serve. When is the last time anyone heard of a practicing physician, lawyer, engineer, etc. serving on a jury?

As in the Simpson trial, how can an individual with an average HS education or a few years college and no experience whatever in scientific pursuits, be expected to understand the intricacies of DNA or the meaning of a small amount of EDTA in a blood sample?

Also, the paltry reimbursement of jury members acts as a hardship equally on the poor/middle class (if not harder) than on a wealthier professional person.

The idea of jury duty should mean as much to our generation as it did to our ancestors. The only exemptions should be for serious medical conditions, not because it might stop someone from making $10,000 or $100,000 this week.

There are multiple problems with our current judicial system. Reasonable doubt has been the subject of controversy for legal scholars for quite some time. The problem is the word reasonable. I do not think that, if members of the legal profession can agree on the meaning, that juries can regardless of their composition. Therefore, it might be beneficial to remove the questioned concept and go with beyond any doubt.