Beyond reasonable doubt: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
No edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|casenote|}}The criminal standard of proof under English law:  
{{a|crime|{{wmc|Sherlock Holmes (1922) - 8.jpg|}}}}The criminal standard of proof under English law:  
{{quote|“formerly described as “beyond reasonable doubt”. That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded “so that you are sure”
{{quote|“formerly described as “beyond reasonable doubt”. That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded “so that you are sure”
:—Legal Studies Board guidance <ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=Judicial+Studies+Board+guidance+standard+proof Let me google that for you]</ref>}}
:—Legal Studies Board guidance <ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=Judicial+Studies+Board+guidance+standard+proof Let me google that for you]</ref>}}
{{Quote|“Are you trying to say you can’t convict anyone without direct evidence?”
{{Quote|“Are you trying to say you can’t convict anyone without direct evidence?”
[[Circumstantial evidence]]] as “information that changes the prior probability.”


“No, but I am saying it should be a lot harder, because without direct evidence you are dependent on probabilities.”}}
“No, but I am saying it ought to be much harder because, without direct evidence, you rely on probabilities.”
:—Some wag on Twitter}}
====Circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt, and the perfect crime====
{{drop|I|t may seem}} outrageous that there is such a thing as a “perfect” crime, wherein the villain leaves no trace of his dastardly deed and thereby walks away scot-free — but as a general proposition under the common law, it is true: you cannot convict someone of a crime for which there is no [[evidence]].  Even if she definitely ''did it''.<ref>As long as she doesn’t ''admit'' she did it.</ref> Here, again, is our old friend [[Der Sieg der Form über Substanz|form over substance]]: this time the the requirement for ''form'' following the uncomfortable implication of [[epistemology]] that ''we cannot know substance''. Form is ''all we have''. Here is {{author|David Hume}}:
 
{{Quote|“We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects, which have been always conjoined together, and which in all past instances have been found inseparable. We cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction. We only observe the thing itself, and always find that from the constant conjunction the objects acquire a union in the imagination.”
:—{{author|David Hume}}}}
If Enlightenment philosophy is a bit much for after-dinner reading, Terry the cook from ''Fawlty Towers'' [[Terry’s law|puts it]] more colourfully:
{{quote|“What the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with.”}}
 
If you want to put someone away, you must ''prove'' it. The defendant does not have to prove ''anything''.
 
In the vernacular, the [[Burden and standard of proof|burden of proof]] is on the prosecution. The ''standard'' of proof that the prosecution must attain is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Not “probably”, not “highly likely”: there must be ''no plausible alternative explanation'' for the events.
 
Here is where the difference between [[direct evidence|direct]] and [[circumstantial evidence]] is stark. If there is reliable witness evidence that the defendant did it, or did ''not'' do it, then the burden and standard can be satisfied easily. There is not much call, or even scope, for doubt.
 
But in a case where there is ''no'' direct evidence that the defendant did ''anything''  — no eyewitness testimony, no CCTV, no uncoerced confession nothing — then the circumstantial evidence suggesting that she did do something is going to have to do an awful lot of work. It must, create an overwhelming probability that there was a murder, that the defendant was responsible, and that it was not a non-culpable death, or that it was but the defendant was not responsible for it.
 
====Reasonable doubt====
{{Drop|N|ow [[doubt]] is}}, in some ways, a positive belief: ''reasonable'' doubt implies you have proactively weighed up possible alternatives and discarded the outlandish ones.
 
There is, therefore, some tension here between crystalline legal theory — ''viz''., the defence need not prove a fig — and the practical reality that it is in the defendant’s interest that ''someone'' casts doubt into jurors’ minds. Since the Crown plainly won’t be doing that, the defence must either rely on the jury to confect plausible doubts by themselves, or ''it must plant them there''. 
 
It is a brave defence counsel indeed who puts her client’s future in the hands of a jury’s  imagination and capacity for creative thought.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Circumstantial evidence]]
*[[Direct evidence]]
*[[Miscarriages of justice]]
*[[Miscarriages of justice]]
{{ref}}{{nld))
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 17:11, 24 August 2024

Crime & Punishment
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

The criminal standard of proof under English law:

“formerly described as “beyond reasonable doubt”. That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded “so that you are sure”

—Legal Studies Board guidance [1]

“Are you trying to say you can’t convict anyone without direct evidence?”

“No, but I am saying it ought to be much harder because, without direct evidence, you rely on probabilities.”

—Some wag on Twitter

Circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt, and the perfect crime

It may seem outrageous that there is such a thing as a “perfect” crime, wherein the villain leaves no trace of his dastardly deed and thereby walks away scot-free — but as a general proposition under the common law, it is true: you cannot convict someone of a crime for which there is no evidence. Even if she definitely did it.[2] Here, again, is our old friend form over substance: this time the the requirement for form following the uncomfortable implication of epistemology that we cannot know substance. Form is all we have. Here is David Hume:

“We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects, which have been always conjoined together, and which in all past instances have been found inseparable. We cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction. We only observe the thing itself, and always find that from the constant conjunction the objects acquire a union in the imagination.”

David Hume

If Enlightenment philosophy is a bit much for after-dinner reading, Terry the cook from Fawlty Towers puts it more colourfully:

“What the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with.”

If you want to put someone away, you must prove it. The defendant does not have to prove anything.

In the vernacular, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The standard of proof that the prosecution must attain is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Not “probably”, not “highly likely”: there must be no plausible alternative explanation for the events.

Here is where the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is stark. If there is reliable witness evidence that the defendant did it, or did not do it, then the burden and standard can be satisfied easily. There is not much call, or even scope, for doubt.

But in a case where there is no direct evidence that the defendant did anything — no eyewitness testimony, no CCTV, no uncoerced confession nothing — then the circumstantial evidence suggesting that she did do something is going to have to do an awful lot of work. It must, create an overwhelming probability that there was a murder, that the defendant was responsible, and that it was not a non-culpable death, or that it was but the defendant was not responsible for it.

Reasonable doubt

Now doubt is, in some ways, a positive belief: reasonable doubt implies you have proactively weighed up possible alternatives and discarded the outlandish ones.

There is, therefore, some tension here between crystalline legal theory — viz., the defence need not prove a fig — and the practical reality that it is in the defendant’s interest that someone casts doubt into jurors’ minds. Since the Crown plainly won’t be doing that, the defence must either rely on the jury to confect plausible doubts by themselves, or it must plant them there.

It is a brave defence counsel indeed who puts her client’s future in the hands of a jury’s imagination and capacity for creative thought.

See also

References

  1. Let me google that for you
  2. As long as she doesn’t admit she did it.