I just concluded my first jury duty, was not selected, but lawyers in jury selection were pounding on the definition of Reasonable Doubt and I felt their scenarios were weak. I concluded If I was 75% sure this would constitute Reasonable Doubt.
Since Reasonable Doubt come into play in most conversions on this board I wonder if anybody has a better description of Reasonable Doubt, one applies to everyday discussions here
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Web Definition- The standard in a criminal case requiring that the jury be satisfied to a moral certainty that every element of a crime has been proven by the prosecution. This standard of proof does not require that the state establish absolute certainty by eliminating all doubt, but it does require that the evidence be so conclusive that all reasonable doubts are removed from the mind of the ordinary person.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Look at what reasonable doubt did for O.J. Simpson in his criminal trial. Then, compare how he did when he faced civil charges from Nichole Brown's family. That should give you a clue.
People who debate news topics get to look at stuff more from the civil trial perspective, I think. Where it's sort of a 51-49 proposition, if the news seems more false than true, one side of the divde will go with the "false" part. The counterpart will look at the same news as more true than false, and then the debate (er, dialogue) ensues.
Now, when details that show the news is false start to pile up, the people who see the false part get more and more convinced the bit is, indeed, false.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I do not know if you have ever sat on a criminal trial. I was curious how other people define "beyond reasonable doubt" or as the web defines it as "moral certainty". I would think the moral certainty would be a bit ambiguous.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Well, look at the "innocence project" and convicted people who have been set free on DNA evidence, after years of incarceration. Reasonable doubt doesn't seem to have done them much good. "Moral certainty" doesn't mean much to me, especially when the main point of trials and lawyers in trials is to whip up an emotion and get people to vote their feelings rather than their logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
One of the scenarios the lawyer used was from a murder case, (mine was a simple assault case). No victim to tell their side and short of a picture or video to conclude absolute truth everything else is subjective, even confessions. I was wonder what is the tipping point between doubt and reasonable doubt. Logically I would put it into a percentage spread, just wondering if someone else had a theory on how to determine a vague notion like “moral certainty”
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Look at what reasonable doubt did for O.J. Simpson in his criminal trial.
Can't say for sure, but the Simpson veredict was probably a case of "jury nullification", and the standard of proof had no real bearing. (In civil trials, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence", or "more likely than not.")
It's a tough one to jduge where the line is for "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think it's supposed to be for a simple reason. The judgement is supposed to be based on best estimate of people who are not specialists, not geniuses, not legal professionals, but people on an even standing with the defendant, ie, his "peers."
The alternative is antithetical to the democratic way. The alternative is to use a jury of selected specialists, and that is equivalent to trial by government, with the potential kangaroo court. Not acceptable (but it IS the neocon's preferred choice.)
My experience from sitting on juries is that ordinary people try as hard as they can to do the right thing, but fail more often than not. Still, it's more just than any alternative.
Posts: 946 | Location: Newberg | Registered: 15 March 2006
Reasonable doubt doesn't mean No doubt. You can still have some doubts about innocence or guilt, and unless you witnessed the crime, who wouldn't have doubts?
------------------------------------ We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.
Posts: 1855 | Location: here and now | Registered: 22 September 2005
artlo: Can't say for sure, but the Simpson veredict was probably a case of "jury nullification", and the standard of proof had no real bearing.
What is "jury nullification"? When does the standard of proof have a real bearing?
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Jury nullification is when the jury says, "We don't care what standards the court instructs us to use. We're going to use our own standards, (for whatever reason)."
I would say that a "beyond a resonable doubt" standard of proof requires a 95% or more degree of cerainty, but then, that is only MY standard - and that, of course, is the real root of the difficulty. The standard can't be quantified or standardized.
I suppose it could be said that, in jury nullification, the jury has decided to use a standard of 99.999% certainty, but I rather doubt that the jury even attempts to calculate such a judgment.
Posts: 946 | Location: Newberg | Registered: 15 March 2006
Well, the decision is all in a group's mind, huh? What if someone could control the group's mind?
quote:
This is a way of presenting information in a strategically structured way that taps into the subconscious patterns of the human mind in order to greatly expand your influence. These tools work with juries, judges and witnesses.
quote:
Lawyers are using Neurolinguistic Programming to present their cases to juror, with winning results
The thinking used to be that if a lawyer could present enough evidence in favor of his client, he would be able to win his case. Now most people realize this isn’t always true, as time and time again it’s the ability to tap into the jury’s emotional state that will influence their decision.
Twenty-five years ago a new science in the field of human behavior was born from the success of a therapist who could exert amazing influence over his clients. Since then the development of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) has moved into the fields of human behavior, influencing, persuading and changing how people communicate with each other. Today, NLP is beginning to find a prominent role in our judicial system. Why communicate only with facts and reason when you can tap into the emotional state of jurors just as easily?
Whether choosing perspective jurors, influencing jurors’ decisions, or working with witnesses to overcome their fears on the witness stand, NLP is now one of the cutting edge tools in the field of judicial psychology.
Designed Thinking utilizes the latest technology of the subconscious mind, combining NLP, Hypnosis and Neuro Semantics. Through the use of words that tap into the thinking patterns of the jury, body language, and vocal inflections, a lawyer skilled in these tools can easily double their influencing skills.
Imagine the influence you’ll have when you can tap into people’s emotional states. How much power will you have when you know how to:
How much power would you control if you knew how to:
* Break down a witness you believe is lying? * Relax important witnesses so they can give a more credible testimony * Intensify the impact of positive and negative evidence * Build a foundation of trust quickly and easily * Know how certain groups of people react to information * Change peoples emotions instantly * Confuse or center peoples thinking
Some say it’s unfair or manipulative, but it’s the advantage you need when justice for your client is on the line. This is a way of presenting information in a strategically structured way that taps into the subconscious patterns of the human mind in order to greatly expand your influence. These tools work with juries, judges and witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Interesting article, Kate. No question that attorneys will use any device available to influence the jury. This is just one reason that, as I wrote, jurors try very hard to do the right thing, and they often fail. I know I did on one jury I was on.
A trial is really about the competition between opposing attorneys, not the truth. It may be a lousy system, but there is none better or more democratic.
Posts: 946 | Location: Newberg | Registered: 15 March 2006
artlo, The NLP angle sure puts a point on how much self is in "self-determination."
I've never been on a jury, but I've seen plenty of movies where the jury was somehow manipulated by an outside force. I liked one, a Gene Hackman movie, where the jurors played the same game as the jury fixers. Can't remember the title right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Being on a jury is one of the most important experiences that an ordinary person can have.
I'm not aware of the Gene Hackman movie. "Twelve Angry Men" is probably the definative film on the jury system.
My favorite film that speaks to this is "To Kill a Mockingbird" (in fact, this is one of my top three favorite films of all.)
I'll tell you about the jury I was on that most informed me about how these things work. This is where I learned how fallible I am. I never quite decided whether I did the right thing.
It was a murder trial where a 20-something man had deliberately murdered his mother and grandmother. The choice for the jury was between first degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.
The defendant was an unsympathetic lost soul who would probably never lead a productive life. The defense presented a picture of the indescribable abuse that this young man had experienced at the hands of his mother and grandmother as a child. You couldn't imagine that a mother could do this stuff to her child!
In summary, I decided that the mom and grandma got what they deserved and voted, along with one other, for the manslaughter charge. It was just like in the movies. Other jurors pointing fingers at me and yelling, "It's because of people like you . . . etc." All that did was make me mad, and I dug my heels in.
Like I said, I never decided whether I did the right thing, but on balance, I believe that justice was done.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Man! Is there ANYTHING you can't find in Wikipedia? I did see that movie and it was superb.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is not really about jurys, but it speaks to how wrong the justice system can be, as a result of the prevailing community standards. It is also one of the most moving films I have seen for alot of reasons. The cast, the acting, the music, I think it may be a perfect film.
Posts: 946 | Location: Newberg | Registered: 15 March 2006
well, artlo, actually it was google, first; wiki, second. But I wonder too, how comprehensive our shared knowledge is.
I've seen To Kill a Mockingbird, but I'd like to see it again, as well as atticus who honored Atticus Finch with her sign-on.
So, where are we?
I was interested in the question Loganthor raised about how the burden of proof (whatever it may be) fits in with these board conversations. I think it has little bearing, 'cos people rarely shift their points of view. They seem to be sort of inbred.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Well Kate, I don't think that burden of proof has anything to do with this message board. I am a little weary of postings that cite tons and tons of data and become full blown white papers (although I'm certainly guilty of using data, myself). If the purpose is to convince somebody on the other side, forget it.
The best one can hope for is to stop a bad argument in its tracks. There's some satisfaction in that, although it rarely happens. On the other hand, I have learned some facts that have informed my opinions. Now, PeeWee has presented us with a Wall Street Journal news article that claims that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in a dramatic tidal wave of tax revenues. Hmmm. I don't know what I'll do with that. Just wait and see what comes from people who are more scholarly than me, I guess.
Mostly, I am less interested in the facts than I am in what people's opinions about those facts.
BTW, in MOCKINGBIRD, when Scout wakes up and says, "Hey, Boo.", it always reduces me to tears. Do you have any favorite moments?
Posts: 946 | Location: Newberg | Registered: 15 March 2006
Hmmm. It's been a really long time since I last saw the film. I'll watch it again and tell you. I think the honorable and humane man who was Atticus Finch is what stays with me, what I remember.
About the debate, and the facts and figures, interesting point. I remember working really hard at proving a point, and then once I had collected everything that I felt I needed to find, I stopped caring about making the argument any more. I don't know exactly when it happened either. One day I was pushing this big boulder up a hill, and the next, I just quit. But I don't remember what day it was, or why. I do know that I believed I had found a source to put the pieces together, more than once, and then I realized the source had been ignored or misconstrued or had been simply washed over and washed up by what amounted to, I think in most cases, pure economic interests. Hmmmm.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by Loganthor: I just concluded my first jury duty, was not selected, but lawyers in jury selection were pounding on the definition of Reasonable Doubt and I felt their scenarios were weak. I concluded If I was 75% sure this would constitute Reasonable Doubt.
Since Reasonable Doubt come into play in most conversions on this board I wonder if anybody has a better description of Reasonable Doubt, one applies to everyday discussions here
- If a person latches onto 75% or more of a Party's positions, there is reasonable doubt as to his/her objectiveness and honesty.
- Objectively gather and consider all of the facts and apply the simplest theory to fit.
Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006
- If a person latches onto 75% or more of a Party's positions, there is reasonable doubt as to his/her objectiveness and honesty.
Interesting observation, Strawberry. I wonder how we'd measure the 75%.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
