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)
Love this one.
For the exact reason your blog points out, is why I think the death penalty should be removed. Just one wrongful death by this law is too much.
I can just imagine how many wrongful deaths have occurred up til now.
The cost varies per case.
I'd rather that for whom took a life, must pay the same price. As long as tried and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
luke
My one cousin is a lawyer. He's going to love this one.
What would you think SR if you were wrongfully sitting in the hot seat just before the lever was about to be pulled?
Even one innocent man going to jail is too many, but we cannot abolish the penal system because of that. That is why guilt must be proved 100% and not beyond reasonable doubt.
We had the death penalty and since it was abolished murder stats has escalated to being out of hand at 50 murders a day. There is more and more support to bring it back because it is the best deterrent.
.
While the cost of incarceration is high, that is not the main factor to me. I just feel, like you, that if somebody has premeditated to kill somebody, he has forfeited his own right to go on living. If it was due to negligence, recklessness, on the spur of the moment etc, ok, maybe then it is something something different,
Cat responded well on the side effects of being too lenient.
SR
If the murders rising to 50 a day was without a doubt directly associated with the doing away of the death penalty, that would certainly be a good reason to consider reinstating it.
I will say, that is a benefit of a world turning into one becoming more monitored by technology, crime will be more difficult to do without getting caught.
Yes indeed, if one takes one life, he/she doesn't deserve to live. That's my main reason.
The confirmation that "crime doesn't pay" only us reinforced in the death penalty.
Every time the have built armor that can withstand any shell, they have built a cannon that can pierce any armor. The criminals are just getting better as well. It is a vicious circle and the criminals are always one step ahead. If they knew they'd be caught, ther'd be no crime.
That is the tragedy, crime does pay and very handsomely so.
crime doesn’t pay
"used to say that crime does not give you any advantage, because you will be caught and punished – used when warning people not to get involved in crime
? crime"
This is my version.
When I look at the drug lords and godfathers of organized crime, I don't know. And they all invest their illegal gains into legitimate enterprises. You cut one head off and another seven grows out.with the current legislation they will never be curtailed. They are financially too strong.
that could be handy if you can control who appears in his court.
My opinion is that, seize any legitimate business run by these criminals as long as these business originally got funded by criminally obtained assets.
Some years ago they introduced similar legislation here. I don't know how far it got and if they are applying it. the problem is that our police is so corrupt that the big fish are not caught. they are tipped off before a raid can take place.
I read that when Giuliani was the mayor of New York, he cleaned the city up quite a bit.