- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How certain would you have to be to convict?
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:45 am
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:45 am
If you're 99.9% sure the person's guilty, would this meet beyond a reasonable doubt to you?
What about 99%? 96%?
What about 99%? 96%?
This post was edited on 8/10/17 at 10:49 am
27
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:46 am to UFFan
quote:
If you're 99.9% sure the person's guilty, would this meet beyond a reasonable doubt to you?
Why wouldn't it?
I'd assume anything that would fall in that 0.1% isn't particularly reasonable.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:46 am to UFFan
50.1%
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:48 am to UFFan
quote:
If you're 99.9% sure the person's guilty, would this meet beyond a reasonable doubt to you?
Yes
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:49 am to UFFan
Depends on prior convictions. 75% if it's repeated behavior
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:49 am to UFFan
Would be hilarious if you're asking this from a deliberation room right now.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:52 am to UFFan
Depends how guilty they look
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:54 am to UFFan
i know by looking at them if they're guilty.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:54 am to UFFan
If he's a Florida fan, he's definitely guilty.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:56 am to UFFan
If it were a criminal trial and I had any doubt about the defendant's guilt, then I could not cast a guilty verdict in good conscience.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:57 am to UFFan
very circumstance dependent, but i would have to be at least 98% sure and even that's maybe a lit low.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:58 am to UFFan
Depends on the race of the suspect.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:01 am to UFFan
quote:
How certain would you have to be to convict?
Not very.
*Bookmarking thread for use in getting out of jury duty*
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:03 am to UFFan
Judging by some of the responses I've seen on here sometimes, some wouldn't have to be too certain. As for myself, I don't know about a percentage, but, I'd have to think it would depend on the case and the evidence brought forth by the prosecution. If they don't have enough evidence, I couldn't convict no matter how I felt.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:10 am to UFFan
Convict for what? Regardless, Nolo has a pretty good explanation of the required proof.
quote:
Courts over the years have debated the extent to which the government has to prove its case to meet this high standard. But it’s clear that, according to the standard, it’s not enough for the trier of fact to simply believe the defendant is guilty. Rather, the evidence must be so convincing that no reasonable person would ever question the defendant’s guilt. The standard requires that the evidence offer no logical explanation or conclusion other than that the defendant committed the crime. Courts sometimes describe this level of confidence in a verdict as a moral certainty.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean, however, that the prosecution must eliminate all unreasonable doubts a jury could possibly have. Nor must the prosecution prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt or to an absolute certainty. These would be impossible burdens because only witnesses to an alleged crime can be certain—and even then, not all witnesses can be certain. Rather, this highest of standards requires—after consideration of all facts—only one logical conclusion: that the defendant is indeed guilty.
This post was edited on 8/10/17 at 11:14 am
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:14 am to UFFan
Something about the emperical rule. Something about three standard deviations.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:40 am to UFFan
quote:reasonable doubt is any room for doubt, so 99.9999999999999% would be enough for reasonable doubt
If you're 99.9% sure the person's guilty, would this meet beyond a reasonable doubt to you?
see: Casey Anthony
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:55 am to UFFan
quote:
If you're 99.9% sure the person's guilty, would this meet beyond a reasonable doubt to you?
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty, but good luck on determining exactly what it is. I was on a jury a few months back and the jury instructions are pretty vague.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:03 pm to UFFan
How do you measure that?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News