The point of the Clive Stafford Smith (who has to be one of the most eminent lawyers on the planet) clip was to demonstrate that in the US (and elsewhere) the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is open to a gross variance in interpretation.
It is not as it has been claimed on this thread. If judges can irrationally accept up to 25% doubt, what is the likelihood of untrained jurors making objective, rational decisions with no bias?
What is the likelihood that some jurors will be dominated by some others? How easy is it to be the one juror who says no? How does that social dynamic really work?
Firstly, to post a youtube video, remember to take the 's' off 'https'.
I'm about to watch the documentary now, but I'd like to ask a question while I do: If you could put a percentage figure on 'reasonable doubt' would you acquit if you had 5% doubt? 10% doubt? 50% doubt? What would be your figure?
This can be a very good place for working through stuff and reaching out to other people for ideas, or company without having to get too close if you're not ready.
Good for you, you're taking positive steps forward.
In Western culture I can think of two meanings: one that might be the one you don't want to say so I won't either; the other is that white flowers are often associated with innocence, humility, and reverence.
I'm looking forward to having her back with us where she belongs. Three days is already too long and I strongly suspect the doctors and nurses of kidnap, as no doubt they'll be enjoying her company.
My best friend picked me up last night, took me home, gave me a guided tour of her new house, asked for my artistic advice (I offered to make some soft furnishings for her), she made me tea, pulled up a foot stool in front of the sofa which we shared, listened, shared her news and emotional self and gave me a lift home.
If each moment in existence relates to other moments, ie. what has come before affects the present and future experience, then yes, Maya in the moment has lasting value.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,988)
RE: Murder Or Mercy?
The point of the Clive Stafford Smith (who has to be one of the most eminent lawyers on the planet) clip was to demonstrate that in the US (and elsewhere) the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is open to a gross variance in interpretation.It is not as it has been claimed on this thread. If judges can irrationally accept up to 25% doubt, what is the likelihood of untrained jurors making objective, rational decisions with no bias?
What is the likelihood that some jurors will be dominated by some others? How easy is it to be the one juror who says no? How does that social dynamic really work?