- 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
re: How certain would you have to be to convict?
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:59 am to Tigeralum2008
Posted on 8/10/17 at 10:59 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:theoretical. A juror can be .1% sure and still vote guilty.
That'll work for a civil jury trial but not criminal justice
0
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 11:06 am to MorbidTheClown
quote:
i know by looking at them if they're guilty.
One of my father's friends tried to get out of jury duty by telling the judge, "you know me. I'm wishy washy." Didn't work.
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 11:20 am to AnonymousTiger
quote:
“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.
If I'm a juror, that paragraph tells me exactly nothing about what kind of criteria I'm supposed to use. Ditto about most instructions from judges I've read or heard of. I'm left with the conclusion that reasonable doubt means whatever the juror thinks it means.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:21 am to TheWalrus
quote:
50.1%
Might want to reread the judges instructions there, chief.
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 11:42 am to foshizzle
quote:
If he's from Florida, he's definitely guilty
FIFY
Posted on 8/10/17 at 11:44 am to Duckhammer_77
2% certain to convict
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?
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:03 pm to UFFan
For me, it would have to be airtight, no holes in the case whatsoever. I am not going to convict someone just in case they did it. With that said, I would be as fair as I can possibly be. We are talking about someone's life and I wouldn't want to be responsible for putting someone behind bars who is innocent, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to put a guilty person back on the street.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:08 pm to UFFan
100%
Nothing worse than taking an innocent persons freedom
Nothing worse than taking an innocent persons freedom
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:13 pm to Tigeralum2008
Common fallacy. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not equal beyond all doubt. What a reasonable person would be doubtful of is the question.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:21 pm to UFFan
I use to cover courts for a newspaper I worked for.
I pretty much never saw anyone who actually went to trial not be found guilty. There was probably 15-20 times where I sat there and told myself that there is no way this is 100% without a doubt a crime committed by this person and then the jury takes 10 minutes and comes back and finds them guilty.
Granted, this is Texas lol, so you don't get much of the benefit of the doubt here.
I pretty much never saw anyone who actually went to trial not be found guilty. There was probably 15-20 times where I sat there and told myself that there is no way this is 100% without a doubt a crime committed by this person and then the jury takes 10 minutes and comes back and finds them guilty.
Granted, this is Texas lol, so you don't get much of the benefit of the doubt here.
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:24 pm to UFFan
99.9%.
And then I'd have to agree the law isn't dumb and actually serves a purpose.
And then I'd have to agree its being used appropriately in that particular case.
Jury nullification bros holla
And then I'd have to agree the law isn't dumb and actually serves a purpose.
And then I'd have to agree its being used appropriately in that particular case.
Jury nullification bros holla
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:25 pm to UFFan
What is the potential penalty? Are we talking death penalty? Jail Time? or just a fine?
Posted on 8/10/17 at 12:26 pm to McCaigBro69
My fried told me a story of when he was on Jury dury:
" several of us men on the jury decide before the trial started that we were going to vote guilty because even if he didn't do it he probably needed to be in jail for something else."
" several of us men on the jury decide before the trial started that we were going to vote guilty because even if he didn't do it he probably needed to be in jail for something else."
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News