Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required in most criminal The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and often severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. Criminal punishment, depending on the offense and jurisdiction, may include execution, loss of liberty, cases within an adversarial system The adversarial system of law is the system of law that relies on the contest between each advocate representing his or her party's positions and involves an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, trying to determine the truth of the case. As opposed to that, the inquisitorial system has a judge (or a group of judges who. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person The reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law representing an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt Beyond the shadow of a doubt, or beyond a shadow of a doubt, is a standard of proof. The phrase means the issue in question is so obvious, or has been so thoroughly proven, that there can exist no doubt. Two possible interpretations of "Beyond a shadow" might refer, first,to the fact that doubt could be nowhere in the vicinity , or" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent many believe it an impossible standard[citation needed]. Reasonable doubt is therefore used.
If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. Scholars of jurisprudence, or legal philosophers, hope to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of law, of legal reasoning, legal systems and of legal institutions. Modern jurisprudence began in the 18th century and was focused on the first principles of the law of nature, civil law, and the of the applicable country.
The use of "reasonable doubt" as a standard requirement in the western justice system originated in medieval England. In English common law prior to the "reasonable doubt" standard, passing judgment in criminal trials had severe religious repercussions for jurors. According to Christian law prior to the 1780s: “the Juryman who finds any other person guilty, is liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade, Body and Soul, in this world and that to come.”[1] It was also believed that “In every case of doubt, where one’s salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way. . . . A judge who is in doubt must refuse to judge.”[1] It was in reaction to these "religious fears"[1] that "reasonable doubt" was introduced in the late 17th century to English common law, thereby allowing jurors to more easily convict. Therefore the original use of the "reasonable doubt" standard was opposite to its modern use of limiting a juror's ability to convict.
However juries in criminal courts in England are no longer customarily directed to consider whether there is a "reasonable doubt" about a defendant's guilt. Indeed a recent conviction was appealed after the judge had said to the jury "You must be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt." The conviction was upheld but the Appeal Court made clear their unhappiness with the judge's remark, indicating that the judge should instead have said to the jury simply that before they can return a verdict of guilty, they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty". R v Majid [2009] EWCA Crim 2563 (12 October 2009).
References
- ^ a b c What Are the Origins of Reasonable Doubt?, http://hnn.us/articles/47018.html, Feb 25, 2008.
See also
- Burden of proof The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence
- Clear and convincing evidence
- Critical thinking Critical thinking is the purposeful and reflective judgement about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments. Critical thinking involves determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining
- Metacognition Metacognition is defined as "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing." It can take many forms; "it includes knowledge about when and where to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving." "Metamemory, individuals' knowledge about memory, is an especially important form of
- Moral certainty
- Preponderance of evidence
- Probable cause In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment
- Reasonable man The reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law representing an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven
- Reasonable suspicion Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and
Categories: Sociology of law | Skepticism Further information: 'Philosophical skepticism' and 'Skepticism'. There is no subcategory Skeptics because it is already taken by Scientific skeptics subcategory, which shouldn't be mistaken with philosophical skeptics. However, scientific skepticism is of course an offshoot of scepticism | Logic Categories: Abstraction | Branches of philosophy | Formal sciences | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary fields | Axiology | American legal phrases | Criminal law Categories: Public law | Crime | Common law | Law by issue | Criminal procedure |
Washington Post
... will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Green Bay did the right thing in letting Favre go as long as Ryan Grant is over his hamstring issues. ...
and more »
