What Chance Of Innocence Can Be Tolerated For Conviction?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly I vehemently disagree with chezlaw. If we did start putting a number on chances of guilt in whodonit cases, what possible reason is there not to specify what those chances should be in a juror's mind for various crimes? In chezlaws's scenario you could have a hung jury because eleven voted to convict each of whom thought the chances of innocence was 2% while another voted to acquit thinking there was only a one percent chance of innocence. Because he thought one percent was enough. Even worse would be the jury that should be "hung", but isn't, because the one jury member who thinks there is a 25% chance of innocence doesn't believe that he should vote to acquit.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do occasional come over a bit authoritarian don't you? People act as they think right not as others (even you) think is right.

I think many (including me) are happy with the idea of some sort of majority process.

chez

[David Sklansky]

What a vague retort. You think it is ok for some jury members to believe it is OK to convict a person who they believe has a 20% chance of innocence while other members think it is OK to acquit someone based on a 1% chance? And its OK for those people to be randomly placed in jury boxes?

If that was true why the necessity of using the words "reasonable doubt" and, I might add, defining that term moderately precisely. Why not just say "convict if you think you have enough evidence to". The answer of course is that the government doe NOT want jury members to be saying to themselves "as long as he is slightly favored to be guilty lets be safe and put him away" or " I could never live with myself if I thought there was more than a miniscule chance I helped convict an innocent man". You are just flat wrong and I bet even Pair The Board agrees with me on this specific issue.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Zero

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What a vague retort. You think it is ok for some jury members to believe it is OK to convict a person who they believe has a 20% chance of innocence while other members think it is OK to acquit someone based on a 1% chance? And its OK for those people to be randomly placed in jury boxes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutley. Anything else would be far worse. again majority veridics should come into play.

[ QUOTE ]
If that was true why the necessity of using the words "reasonable doubt" and, I might add, defining that term moderately precisely. Why not just say "convict if you think you have enough evidence to". The answer of course is that the government doe NOT want jury members to be saying to themselves "as long as he is slightly favored to be guilty lets be safe and put him away" or " I could never live with myself if I thought there was more than a miniscule chance I helped convict an innocent man".

[/ QUOTE ]
what the government wants?? Who gives a flying f what the government wants? Juries are there in part to protect us from the authorities - of course the authorities don't particularly like that and have a habit of incorrectly directing juries about what they can do.

chez

[David Sklansky]

OK nevermind.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet even Pair The Board agrees with me on this specific issue.

[/ 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 ]
"Any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."


[/ QUOTE ]

You claim this is only "moderately precise" and should be replaced by a Number. I definitely do not agree with you on that point.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.

Maybe the averaging can take place in the jury room, I think it would be better for everyone to be free to vote as they see fit knowing that their vote doesn't have a disproportionate weight.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I think it's a judgement call. I'm disposed toward the current unanimous system for criminal cases. But you have a point.

PairTheBoard