Beyond Reasonable Doubt
All over the world innocent people occasionally end up in jail; even in the USA. That has to be so because most states in the US (about 29) have set guidelines on how to compensate those who did time for being innocent. It reminds me of a movie by Steven Seagal where he rather wants his life back in stead of being compensated financially.Please note that I’m wading into unknown waters here because I am not a legal expert and what I know about legal procedures is basically what we see in American movies & TV series, and what we read in novels. I don’t know if things are the way that they are portrayed in these fictional and dramatized works.
But back to ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’; exactly how does it work?
Can a person be found guilty ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ on circumstantial evidence alone or does it require some tangible proof that he actually committed the crime?
Can the combination of a motive, an opportunity, and the means to commit a crime, coupled with no alibi, be enough to convict a person?
Surely he cannot be found guilty just because he could have done it; or can he? I’m sure if you look hard enough you will find several people who could have done it while there is no guarantee that any of them did it.
Sending an innocent man to jail will ultimately destroy his life. His career will be ruined; he will lose his house, his family, his car, his friends and everything else he had accumulated in his life. Then I did not even talk about the loss of future promotions in his now ruined career, the emotional strain, the loss of his dignity, the breach of his privacy, the defamation of his character, and the restraints on his freedom. Can a bit of money ever redress the actual damage that he had suffered? The US$ 50,000 per year compensation just seems a bit flimsy.
Even when finding an innocent man guilty of a petty crime, for a very short stint in jail or perhaps just a fine or a suspended sentence, it will ruin his future prospects for proper jobs or promotion opportunities. The stigma of a criminal record will endure for the rest of his life.
I don’t even want think about a man getting executed before it is discovered that somebody else committed that crime. And what about being found guilty because of ‘evidence’ planted or ignored by a vindictive law enforcer? Don’t tell me it does not happen; there are too many over-worked cops who are only interested in closing the docket; to hell with justice.
I find this rather disturbing for I’d rather see a hundred criminals go free for lack of evidence regardless of what crimes they have committed before I see one person being convicted for something he or she did not do.
Comments (60)
Interesting topic. I'm afraid it's justice for you and seems to be the same all over the world.
Think of the movie Life of David Gale..which is a true story.
He wanted to prove that some innocent people were executed....so he got himself in jail for a crime he didn't commit and the proof of his innocence came out after his execution.
Yes, that is sad. How can his family ever be compensated for such an error.
I doubt it. I'd hate to get a suspension in my stocking.
I've been sitting with a blog for a week now. Too scared to post it.
I don t think theres no perfect solution to not having innocent people being convicted, but I m hoping , maybe newer technology will take us there someday.
It's a very complex problem. You see, DNA and fingerprints at a murder scene is circumstantial. It only proofs that the person was there at some stage. Even if his prints are on the murder weapon it does not prove that he actually committed the murder. Even lie detectors are unreliable. some people can beat it without problems.
It will be nice if they could develop a kind of a mind probe to determine a person's guilt.
Let the games begin, and may he with the best lawyer win
Scottish law allows for Not Proven - so a verdict is not just innocent, or guilty, when everyone knows he dun it but it can't be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' so he walks, but is watched ...
However I do get peevish when someone says an innocent man died. I would be very surprised indeed if anyone who has ever been executed had led a blameless life right up to the minute of being accused. The police throughout the world may seize the wrong guy, but usually because they've been suspicious of him for a while anyway.
The tragedy is when they've watched him (or her) for being an enemy to the state rather than an enemy to the safety of the community. But usually, he (or she) is a bad un anyway.
A Scottish guy a couple of years back was returned to Scotland having served 18 years in prison in the US on Death Row for killing a 2 year-old. Turned out he hadn't, and he was released and told to go to Scotland. But the Scottish jubilation at getting this poor wronged guy back wore off a bit when we found out what we'd got.
JMO and welcome back
Thanks!
And it is sad that the best lawyer wins. We're looking for justice, not theatrics in the courtroom.
i don't think anybody is ever 'innocent' but for justice to prevail a criminal must be convicted for the crimes he committed. If a criminal manages to escape justice, it is not right to frame or otherwise incriminate him in another similar crime just because 'he deserves it'. He probably does but that is vengeance; not justice. When vengeance enters the fray, it opens the door for other evils. That is when cops decide who's guilty and start planting 'evidence' 'to incriminate or ignoring evidence that would exonerate.
And I'm not sure if I like a verdict of 'not proven'. An accused should be deemed innocent until proven guilty and if the state fails to do that he is innocent. If everybody 'knows' that he did it, what is that knowledge based on? Do they have the proof that the state did not have? If so, why was it not presented in court? If not, the accused is innocent.
When evidence is disallowed because of a technical point, I blame the legal system. That is BS.
Evidence is evidence and should be allowed regardless. If it was obtained illegally, like via a burglary, it should still be allowed BUT whoever obtained that evidence illegally should be prosecuted from a dizzy height.
if only one innocent person is condemned to death, it is one person too many.
During the time of the Troubles in NI, there were many Irish people arrested in England for crimes they were innocent of. The most well-known of these were the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4.
The B6 spent 16 years in jail before they were found innocent and released, and the Guilford 4 also spent 15-16 years in prison unjustly. Their lives were ruined irrevocably . No money can compensate for that.
All for being of the wrong nationality in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think this is what Biff was referring to when she said "The tragedy is when they've watched him (or her) for being an enemy to the state." We had (and still have to a lesser extend) a lot of this here. It would seem that there is a different set of laws when they investigate and prosecute 'political crimes'. And they hide behind all kinds of 'security legislation' to bypass normal acceptable procedures..
I say that if an innocent person goes to jail because of 'evidence tampering' the person(s) responsible should sentenced to serving their victims' full sentences.
lately you're not even allowed to shoot a rabies dog. Apparently the pig is the only animal that may be summarily shot. Mind you, some pigs do walk on two legs. i wonder if it will hold up in court for then I have a few pigs to shoot.
And yet, he is there.
I would just like to see the word 'reasonable' taken away. After all, what is 'reasonable'? Is that not very relative or abstract. What is reasonable to one jury may not be reasonable at all to the next. The law should such that if several juries heard the same case, they should all reach the same verdict otherwise it is a farce.
The dictionary defines it as such:
reasonable
adjective
1. having sound judgement; fair and sensible.
2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
3. right, not bad, tolerable, passable;
4. competitive;
Origin
Middle English: from Old French raisonable, suggested by Latin rationabilis ‘rational’, from ratio (see reason).
but it still does not define 'reasonable'.
I think I'll take my chances with the American system before Twitter gets hold of me.
That is exactly the point. I say get rid of the 'reasonable' and make it 'Beyond Doubt'. 'Reasonable' leaves too much for speculation and guessing.
Oh yeah Cat, You have a Merry Christmas,
Public opinion, what ever happened to innocent till proven guilty, now it is or seems to be...guilty, hang them, then lets have the trial.
A innocent person could loose a lot of his life and things in his life, but with some of Public Opinion he could stay in there mind guilty the rest of his life.
Good blog my friend
I doubt many guilty people, with a good lawyer, would be convicted if beyond doubt had to be established.
I think, once again, it is money which is the root of the problem.
it is mostly poor people in jail, guilty or not.
Rich people, or the state, can afford the better lawyers and thus innocent or guilty is only a by-the-way. So it is the whole system is wrong.
I'm not complaining about most of the time when it works. That's fine. I'm worried about the sometimes when it does not work.
It is easy to sacrifice the future of a stranger and to say it is for the greater benefit of the law that works most of the time... until it strikes closer to home.
What if you are the sacrificial goat; or a parent, a sibling, a child or even a friend?
That is another thing. Lawyers as well as the state's representatives get too much latitude in court. They should be limited to presenting the evidence as it is and to responsible cross questioning to reveal any lies in stead of attacking the characters of the witnesses to discredit them. They use too many emotional expletives to influence the jury. The jury should only be subjected to the facts. Emotions should play no part in reaching a verdict.
I believe that is what happens when they are confused by emotional speeches and representations. If they have only the facts of the case to consider, a verdict becomes easy.
I did not mean to be rude; that was a slip up. Merry Xmas to you too.
I'm responding to you a bit out of sequence. I had a small distraction here and missed your comment when I came back.
Exactly, it says: Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt. If only 'reasonable was a better defined and measurable word it may have worked fine.
-we talked about it at work, and I couldn`t help my self sugesting that now he could do one for free...
...got some mixed reactiones on that one....
it has happened. I guy went in for almost fifteen years for murder. I fact, the man was not murdered at all. He just left quietly and made it look as if his wife's lover murdered him. When the first guy came out of jail he discovered that the fella was still alive, living in another city under another name. He sought him out, killed him and went to the police station and told them what he did. He was arrested, tried for the same murder but at a different date and he went back to jail.
...amasing how stupid and morbid life can be at times...
i must tell you that this is hearsay. I don't know if it really happened. my grandfather told me the story and he said it happened when he was a 'young' He was born in 1901.
I'm not very clued up on double jeopardy, but I believe it allows a person to be tried twice for the same crime. This as it reached me, was treated as two different crimes because his defense was based on the fact that he already did fifteen years for killing the same man. and apparently the prosecutor said that he did time for a murder that happened 20 years earlier. He was standing trial now for a murder that took place a year ago.
As I said, I'm not sure if it recall happened but I must add that my grandfather had a lot of detail. Enough to make it believable.
As I said, I'm not sure if it really happened but I must add that my grandfather had a lot of detail. Enough to make it believable.
Let me put it like this:
"In ten seconds the man my client is suspected of murdering will walk into the courtroom completely unharmed".
The defense lawyer counts down from ten and everybody looks to the door. Nothing happens.
" Ah ha!" says the defense "you all looked to the door, therefor I conclude that their is reasonable doubt in this case and ask that my client be found not guilty."
The jury then deliberates. After twenty-five minutes they return the verdict of guilty. "But you all looked!" Says the lawyer. "Yes," says the Jury, "but your client didn't."
What I especially like about your system is the cops' zero tolerance against crime. pick up on the petty crimes and you get the big criminals in the same act.