Reasonable Doubt
The idea behind America's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof in criminal trials is that the worst thing you can say about a nation is, "They have innocent people in jail there."
What kind of country has innocent people in jail? A very bad country.
The reasonable doubt standard is very high. It is so high that it is often disregarded by jurors (and prosecutors, who are ethically bound to never bring a case that cannot meet that standard).
Traditionally, the reasonable doubt standard has not been fully applied to poor people and ethnic minorities. Those groups often face a "strong suspicion" standard.... "I know of people like that, and I think people like that tend to do crimes like this."
It is the shame of the nation that any person ever applies their prejudices to a criminal proceeding. It should also be a personal shame if we find ourselves applying our prejudices to a criminal proceeding.
I very seldom, if ever, want a given outcome in a criminal trial. Even when I am very well informed about a case, I recognize that the legal system creates an evidentiary information environment for the jury, and for nobody else, that is the only real lens.
Even when I disagree with a jury I have to recognize that they had a view I did not, and that their view is legally superior to anyone else's view.
Sometimes juries are flat wrong. It happens.
99% of the time a jury is flat wrong it is when they convict because in our system the benefit of doubt is supposed to go to the defendant. It is difficult to have a wholly irrational acquittal.
It has happened, of course. But the irrational conviction is a vastly higher threat to our system.
We should strive to not be the sort of nation that has innocent people in jail.
Even on a racial level, the notorious old deep-south cases where some klansman walked despite committing straight up murder were not the notable racial problem with the system.
The biggest racial problem in the Jim Crow criminal justice system was the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of black people convicted of crimes of which they should have been acquitted.
In America there is only so upset we should get about anybody being acquitted because that is supposed to be the system's default setting. Being acquitted is not a seal of approval for the accused. It is not a formal finding of innocence.
It is a finding that the state did not clear a bar we intentionally set very high.
And the threat to all citizens, and to oppressed citizens in particular, is for the bar be set any lower. Lowering the bar is not a boon to the oppressed. Ever.
Should Oliver North's conviction have been overturned? Yeah, probably so. I know that as a jurist I would always favor the broadest interpretation of an immunity, even though I actually hate Oliver North, which I can't say about all that many people. I take the 5th Amendment seriously so there's only so upset I can get about the thing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
