Was “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” a bad idea?

You want to deprive people of their liberty, just because it is “more likely than not“ that they committed a crime?

My friend, that is some totalitarian stuff.

Before we deprive people of liberty, we need to be damned certain if they actually did something wrong.

Nope. Isn’t the conviction rate for serious crimes already above 90%?

With our corrupt Justice system, you want to give the authorities more power to deprive people of freedom


Wow

quote:

---

Would you wrongfully imprisone a few people to save a thousand lives and multiple cities/metros?

---

No

But I'd lengthen the penalty for violent crimes including the death penalty for rape and murder..

Then I would release everyone convicted of a merchant related offenses or tax crimes to make room for them..

This is one of the true protections we enjoy as Americans. If we are putting people in jail and depriving them of their freedoms, it must be based on solid evidence. I know I wholeheartedly want that protection for myself, even though there’s a very slim chance that I’d need it. . Prosecutors are overzealous enough sometimes, and a “50.1” burden would not be the answer to protect us all. There are laws on the books, and they can start by enforcing those to protect society.

Juries can call it 'beyond', even when it isn't.
No sense in making it easier.

Read how the Oathkeepers got railroaded in a Soviet Style show trial.

quote:

---

And witness after witness, including those for the government, admitted the defendants did not plan in advance to “storm” the Capitol. No matter—prosecutors argued that the accused could have entered into the “conspiracy” at any time, including moments before they walked inside the Capitol, and that the agreement didn’t require any specificity or overt consent. “The government also does not have to prove that all members of the conspiracy directly met, or discussed between themselves their unlawful objectives, or agreed to all the details, or agreed to what the means were by which the objectives would be accomplished,” the final jury instructions read. “What the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that two or more persons in some way or manner arrived at some type of agreement, mutual understanding, or meeting of the minds to try to accomplish a common and unlawful objective.”

Jurors did not hear, however, from numerous FBI informants including the group’s vice president, who suffered a medical emergency as he boarded a plane for D.C. to testify. Judge Amit Mehta also refused to allow the jury to hear expert testimony and evidence of “agents provocateurs” located outside the east side of the building near the Oath Keepers yet remain unidentified and uncharged to this day.

Defense witnesses who saw the defendants act as a barrier between unruly protesters and law enforcement, including Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn who took the stand for the prosecution during the trial, were prevented from testifying.

---

Oath Keepers Verdict:
A Dangerous Escalation in Criminalizing Dissent

So you want “ehh good enough” justice?

Anyone serving time for a crime they didn’t commit is a travesty.

quote:

---

Before we deprive people of liberty, we need to be damned certain if they actually did something wrong.

---

'Damned certain' has no real meaning. The jurors who voted not guilty in the Menendez murder of their parents case said that they were damn certain they were guilty. 'But they're orphans'. So they voted not guilty.
This is not a joke. I heard the female juror say it on TV.

"According to the Chicago Tribune, it is far too easy to convict an innocent person in the United States, and an estimated 2 to 10 percent of all convictions are wrongful. When this percentage is applied to the 2.3 million people who were incarcerated at the time the article was written in 2018, it amounts to between 46,000 and 230,000 innocent people behind bars, a staggering number by any account. Once convicted, there are few resources or mechanisms available for righting this legal wrong; a wrongful conviction suit is one of them."
2020 usclaims website

Biggest issues in wrongful convictions are prosecutorial / law enforcement misconduct, false confessions, inadequate representation. These issues would produce an explosion in the number of wrongful convictions if the burden of proof was lowered.


Preponderance is 51% - that's an abomination. This standard is horribly abused in administrative settings and millions of innocent people have their lives ruined because of it - move that over into criminal law and there would be a revolt in this nation due to the number of innocent people being locked up.

Frankly, I'm stunned by this suggestion.

If the judiciary ever bothered to do its job, this problem would be cut down substantially. When Senator Ted Stevens was wrongfully convicted the judge feigned outrage but did nothing about it. Like nothing at all. It's the same story, over and over again.

quote:

---

I think it’s just that some concepts are so fundamental and foundational that there really shouldn’t even be much spitballing possible or reasonable on such a subject.

---

Then people aren’t being honest with themselves. There is no such thing as a perfect system, so if you’re ok with what we have currently then you’re ok with an imperfect system. Nobody wants the innocent to be imprisoned any more than they want people to die in car crashes, but we accept it, because we’re trying for an optimal solution, not a perfect one.

We could make the national speed limit 25 mph and save thousands of lives, but we don’t want the consequences that come with that change. We don’t want criminals roaming the streets so we have flawed people decide whether or not they’re guilty, and we accept the wrong outcomes with the right because we’re not willing to live with the consequences of “no innocent person will ever be convicted”.