April 13, 2005

link We've all heard about "reasonable doubt," when it comes to law, but where does this come from? The "reasonable doubt" rule was not originally designed to serve the purpose it is asked to serve today: It was not originally designed to protect the accused. Instead, it was designed to protect the souls of the jurors against damnation. Convicting an innocent defendant was regarded, in the older Christian tradition, as a potential mortal sin. The purpose of the "reasonable doubt" instruction was to address this frightening possibility, reassuring jurors that they could convict the defendant without risking their own salvation, as long as their doubts about guilt were not "reasonable." In its original form, the rule thus had nothing to do with maintaining the rule of law in the sense that we use the phrase, and nothing like the relationship we imagine to the values of liberty.
posted by hunterdane 19 years ago
  • Erm... ok. And...? This is vaguely interesting, but what's the purpose of this post? So we reinterpreted the phrase back in the 17th Century. So what? We reinterpreted a whole LOT back then. It sorta led to America as we know it.
  • Interesting. I like the modern interpretation better though. This is vaguely interesting, but what's the purpose of this post? To offer something vaguely interesting to read, obviously. I thought it was more than vaguely interesting, but that's not the point. Thhe point it that mofi is for all of us, and, unfortunately for you, FPPs are not supposed to be specifically tailored to your taste.
  • Huh. I think that a lot of what our system of government is built on is equally hard to define. While that does lead to (semantic?) battles and confusion, I think it also leads to a system elastic enough to change with the times while still retaining the same vague, idealstic basis. In all, a good thing.
  • I find this quite interesting, but the paper cited here is 171 pages long, and in order to discuss anything about it would take quite a bit of reading time. Any highlights? Controversial statements? Areas you want to talk about in particular?
  • I liked this post and found that content interesting. It seems that sometimes the poster will let the voices of mofi to supply the "why's" and more often than not, they are proven right. Besides, I'm the pope and I say it's ok.
  • That's a rather interesting paper, though I've only had time to skim it. His theological analysis is quite different from Barbara Shapiro's "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "probable cause" : historical perspectives on the Anglo-American law of evidence." Shapiro argued that the shift from moral certainty and similar notions to beyond reasonable doubt was closely tied with a movement away from a theological interpretation toward one that was more consistent with developing scientific notions of chance and probability. Whitman is emphasizing the continuity with those notions instead. This is related to my area of study and I'm not sure I agree with him, but it is an interesting approach.
  • Wow, I've always assumed I understood reasonable doubt but after reading some of this I realize that I didn't, and probably still don't. However, if reasonable doubt is a subjective assessment of a defendant's guilt and a preponderance of the evidence is objective, I'd prefer the latter be used as an instrument to determine guilt or innocence rather than the former.
  • I'm having difficulty in seeing the difference between the old view and the new view. They sound like the same thing. Both views say that it's bad to convict an innocent person.