Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

How many times have you heard the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt"?  And what does that really mean?  Webster (or wikipedia) defines "reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.   While reasonable doubt is the highest standard used in court, it is also a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable.  Allegedly, it is more difficult to convict under this test, versus "preponderance of evidence (as used in a civil case).

Liberty and Justice for All!

Everyone who knows me, will attest to the fact that I love a good Dateline.  I like to review a good mystery and all the facts surrounding it.  What I love just slightly more than Dateline, however, is a solid documentary, start to finish of ....you name it. It can be a crime, a trial, an accident, whatever. As long as I believe it is being presented "as is."  What that means to me, is without any preferential bias.  I want the facts, just the facts, ALL THE FACTS, good, bad or indifferent.  I like to draw my own conclusions.

My lifelong goal has been to be called as a juror.  I just want to judge something.  All kidding aside, I have known people who get called for jury duty on a regular basis.  It's almost as if their name (or number) has just the right ring to it.  I also understand that some people equate getting called as a juror to being diagnosed with a terminal illness.  Seriously??  I believe I would make a good juror.  I like to hear evidence.  I like to ponder.  I like to weigh the facts.  And most importantly, I still believe that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

That is where the trouble begins (IMHO).  Due to our overzealous media, much is known (whether it be true or false) about a crime, long before the trial begins.  Once a suspect has been arrested, whether that person did it or not soon becomes irrelevant.  Everything we have heard about the crime is what immediately is attached to the suspect.  For all practical purposes, it soon seems that the accused must build a case as to why "it wasn't me" as opposed to having the prosecutor present the "you are so guilty" case.

And only then comes the "reasonable doubt".  When I have conversations over things that aren't even life or death (or life in prison), but involve reasonable doubt,  I am amazed (shocked, frightened) at the thought process (or lack thereof) of some people when making the final decision.   And remember, every person gets to decide on the definition of "reasonable doubt".

Where will you weigh in?

Recently, I watched the documentary "Making a Murderer" and one of the attorneys for the defense said something that really stuck with me.  I will be paraphrasing but it was basically, "many of us know we will never commit a crime; what we don't know is if we will ever be accused of a crime". Terrifying.

I don't know everything but this is what I know for sure.  The thought of being tried by a jury of my peers under the confines
of our current criminal justice system is very sobering.  You may not be guilty until they say so, however, that is not quite the same as "innocent until proven guilty"

Until next time,
#callmyattorney

your pal,

Kari