Re: My Take
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your general idea that we need a Standard for Reasonable Doubt. I agree with chezlaw's observation that what's important is what The People want, not the authorities. He is correct in pointing out that the people often want protection from the authorities.
The Standard for reasonable doubt that the people want is a Human standard.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd just add that what people want varies from person to person and the best way to implement this is to leave the decision to a random sample of people with some averaging process - I can't think of a better averaging process that some sort of majority verdict.
chez
[/ QUOTE ]
This is really a side issue. The thing is, Hung Juries don't really happen that often. Some kind of averaging process must be going on during deliberations in the jury room. Otherwise, all verdicts would be decided on the first ballot. The requirement for a unanimous verdict is part of the Standard for reasonable doubt.
It's not just a question of what level of confidence implies reasonable doubt. Some people may see the evidence entirely differently. If it's a minor difference he will probably be talked out of it. That's the averaging process. But if he has a strong enough conviction that the evidence is saying something entirely different than the majority he can hang the jury. The Public sees that kind of thing as part of overall reasonable doubt for the verdict. It may subject us to crackpots. But it also helps protect us from a majority jury view that may be biased by prejudice. If I am on trial for my life, I want that protection.
PairTheBoard
|