I think gasguru was making the point that a civil case would need to be proved on the balance of probabilities.
Blup
A tragic case
- Thread starter blup
- Start date
I think gasguru was making the point that a civil case would need to be proved on the balance of probabilities.
Blup
Sponsored Links
Indeed so - exactly the same point I was referring to in my text which you are quoting.
The 'balance of probabilities' burden in a civil court is much less demanding than the "beyond reasonable doubt" (or "such that you are sure") one in a criminal court.
Kind Regards, John
Quite...
The public now take "Beyond all doubt" as to mean the evidence must be 100% watertight and that's rarely the case.
Professional juries drawn from experts in the field should be the approach but a jury system is far more advantageous to the current legal profession ie. they make more ££££
It's ridiculous to expect the public to understand the complexity of a financial crime or have to witness the appalling graphic images of some crimes (eg. post-mortem parthology).
The public now take "Beyond all doubt" as to mean the evidence must be 100% watertight and that's rarely the case.
Professional juries drawn from experts in the field should be the approach but a jury system is far more advantageous to the current legal profession ie. they make more ££££
It's ridiculous to expect the public to understand the complexity of a financial crime or have to witness the appalling graphic images of some crimes (eg. post-mortem parthology).
Isn't that EXACTLY what it means?
As I understand it the jury can now be expected to adopt; "Beyond reasonable doubt" as the requirement, which I see as a 'get out clause' and liable to gut feeling decisions.
Sponsored Links
But when you sit on a jury you've got so many nutjobs that are anti everything and absolutely thick....I'm not kidding you...some of them had the usher reaching for the law books and yet they could barely read 
Sure, 100% certainty is very rarely possible and, in any event, if the evidence approaches that (e.g. CCTV footage clearly showing the defendant chopping up a victim!) any sane defendant would plead guilty (hence no jury), anyway.
I think it should probably be more explicitly acknowledged that "beyond all doubt", "beyond a reasonable doubt" or whatever refers to a degree of confidence less than 100%. In very many fields, quantifiable 'confidence levels' of 95% are considered to be 'adequate', although sometimes going up to 99% or beyond in particularly safety-critical situations. That wouldn't necessarily help juries much, since attempting to quantify degrees of certainty/confidence is pretty arbitrary - but it would at least help them to understood that no-one was expecting them to necessarily be "100% confident".
That's not quite what I was talking about. 'Professional juries', as usually considered, do not comprise 'subject experts', which are a separate issue. Rather, they are people trained in making judgements about conflicting evidence, including expert testimony. However ....
There is clearly a problem when cases become technically complex. A few years ago a friend of mine was on the jury for a case which related to highly complex financial crime. After a while (I think a few weeks), the judge 'dismissed the jury' because he said that there was no way that they (or him) would be able to understand, let alone make a judgement in relation to, the technical complexities of the case being presented. I'm not sure whether he actually 'dismissed the case' for this reason, or whether he found some other way of dealing with it.
Kind Regards, John
No. As has been said, if that were the case it would be virtually impossible to convict anyone of anything.
The criminal burden of proof has always referred to the absence of "reasonable doubt", not "any doubt".
Kind Regards, John
That's an inevitable consequence of having randomly-selected juries (which, as I've said, probably isn't sensible) - although I have to say that UI think that the majority of jurors take the role seriously and, within the limitations of their capabilities, attempt to perform the task conscientiously.But when you sit on a jury you've got so many nutjobs that are anti everything and absolutely thick....I'm not kidding you...some of them had the usher reaching for the law books and yet they could barely read
If people are 'thick', or even illiterate, that's not their fault, and even the possession of extreme or unusual views is a matter of 'how they are" (although it is arguably daft that such people should be allowed to be jurors). However, the real 'abusers' are those whose only interest is in getting out of the court/jury room before the pubs open, and are hence to agree to anything which serves that purpose!
Kind Regards, John
99.9% of my court/legal experience is from TV & films and certainly the older ones used to say 'beyond all doubt', quite coincidently an old B&W film this afternoon used the phrase 'beyond doubt' and it stood out like a sore thumb due to this thread.
I don't doubt, but can't explain, your experiences. To the best of my knowledge, in both the UK and many other English-inspired judicial systems, it has always been "beyond [a] reasonable doubt", and never "beyond any/all doubt". However, as I implied when I wrote:
... in the UK it has recently become more common for juries to be instructed that they need to be "sure" (whatever that means!). As the Wikipedia says:
In any event, whatever phraseology is/has been used it is clear that juries have not expected themselves to be "100% certain" - otherwise, as has been said, it would be very rare indeed that they would ever have been able to find anyone guilty of anything! In particular, if any defence has been offered on behalf of a defendant, that surely must represent some 'non-zero' amount of 'doubt', mustn't it?
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
