Beyond a reasonable doubt

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (accessible on http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt takes the following view of the term "Beyond a reasonable doubt":

"The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy."

See reference:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

That’s a really interesting idea, Kirk - to blend statistical and legal thinking.  How was the 70% confidence in jurors’ minds calculated?  Based on the Law of Large Numbers, to me, we should look to false conviction rates.  I did a quick search and one study estimated the false conviction rate of those sentences to death for murder is 4.1% (Gross et al., 2014).  That’s p less than .05.  Though, I have to say, I would consider it quite reasonable to doubt a conviction that has a 4.1% chance of being wrong.  My guess is that juries and the legal system don’t think in terms of probability, but instead use the social cognitive processes studied in Psychology (my field) to estimate guilt.  Maybe people use the availability heuristic, and if they can simulate a way events could have transpired that matches the evidence and is not too far-fetched, they consider themselves to have a “reasonable doubt.”  This is consistent with at least one study where participants were presented vignettes that systematically varied the plausibility that a character would not have died if only slightly different decisions had been made (i.e., counter-factual thinking).  And that’s even when it’s absurd to really consider someone guilty (e.g., because someone ordered one wine versus another that a freak allergy led to a death), people do attribute greater guilt when they can more easily imagine someone living (Wells & Gavanski, 1989).  There is also quite a lot of research that the Just World Hypothesis shapes views of blame.  I look forward to finding out what people who know more about law think.  Best wishes, Kevin

Article Mental Simulation of Causality

Article Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sent...

Kirk,

I disagree with the statement that statisticians find a 95% probability beyond a reasonable doubt. Although 95% does (approximately) encompass two standard deviations away from the center for a normally distributed variable, there is a voluminous literature on the problem with the p-value

I agree with Aran. Statistical tests don't prove or disprove hypotheses, they merely provide support for or against. A hypothesis IS either correct or incorrect independent of p values :)

That 95% is usually depends on the sample size. See these papers

Article TO DETERMINE SKEWNESS, MEAN AND DEVIATION WITH A NEW APPROAC...

Article PERCENTILE BASED HISTOGRAM BIN WIDTH

I guess Prof, evidence says it all ( I do believe it ) . Now con-artists (or psychopaths) try to clean up the mess on time , what is left is "doubt " speculation of what might have happened ...

Be it 95% or 70 % it depends on the way it (guilt) is presented ...

Some can minimize it and say 0 % chances and reasoning shows > 90% or other way round .

Now , reasoning is left to personal discretion . Some like me , over-analyze and many just shrug it off as a "reasonable doubt"

Satisfying the most validated evidence or proof not all

With regard to the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt", it has no place in the decisions to which lawyers, judges and magistrates arrive when applying the laws and ruling in a trial who is guilty or innocent.

Finally, the decision is made discretionally and without using any type of statistics. Often the guilty are declared innocent for lack of evidence, for loss of documents or evidence, or for acts of corruption, where influences and money intervene.

Hello,

In scientific research, very often the test of specific hypotheses is very important. To this end, researchers generally use confidence levels ranging from 0.01 and 0.05 to ascertain the truth or falsity of the claim under scrutiny. Unfortunately, the procedure may result in Type I and Type II errors - the rejection or confirmation of a hypothesis contrary to the existing facts. On this basis, in criminal cases, such probabilistic ways of establishing the truth are immaterial because the case must be settled "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Best regards,

R. Biria

In criminal trials the state must establish, to a particular standard of proof, the defendant's guilt. The most widely used and important standard of proof for criminal conviction is the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. But what legitimates this standard, rather than an alternative? One view holds the standard of proof should be determined or justified - at least in large part - by its consequences. In this spirit, Laudan uses crime statistics to estimate risks the average citizen runs of being violently victimised and falsely convicted. He argues that since the former risk is higher, and the aggregate harms are worse, the standard of proof should be substantially lowered. He presents a formula for calculating the preferred standard. In this article I outline various ways Laudan's uses of crime statistics are flawed, and explain how he substantially overestimates risks of victimhood and underestimates costs of false convictions. I also explain why his formula is mistaken, and illuminate consequences Laudan neglects. I conclude that, even if consequences determine the appropriate standard of proof, Laudan's arguments fail to show the standard is too high. I conclude by suggesting that the inadequacies of Laudan's reasoning might be good news for consequence-based justifications of the standard of proof...

Article In Defence of Reasonable Doubt

Dear Colleagues, Good Day,

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation canbe derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a personis innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then theprosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that anyreasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that noReasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other,even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.",...

Please, see the website link,...

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt

It depends....

I agree with Aparna Sathya Murthy .

Emad

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) is the standard of proof used to convict defendants charged with crimes in the English criminal justice system. If the decision maker perceives that the probability the defendant committed the crime as charged (based on the evidence) is equal or greater than their interpretation of BRD, than he/she will decide to convict. Otherwise, the decision maker will acquit the defendant. It is generally agreed that BRD should be interpreted as a .91 probability.

Ref: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

This standard of proof is used exclusively in criminal cases, and a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless a judge or jury is convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Precisely, if there is any reasonable uncertainty of guilt, based on the evidence presented, a defendant cannot be convicted.

Ostensibly, this burden requires that a trier of fact (judge, jury, arbiter) is fully satisfied and entirely convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence presented proves the guilt of the defendant. There is essentially no room for wavering or uncertainty; the trier of fact believes the evidence to be precise, indubitable, and leaves one with an inescapable conclusion of certainty. Whereas, in a civil trial, a party may prevail with as little as 51 percent probability (a preponderance), those legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent.

Ref: https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/

“It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.” ― Voltaire, Zadig

"Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities. We may be wrong. We may be trying to return a guilty man to the community. No one can really know. But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us." Author: Reginald Rose

"The object of the new school is to teach reasonable doubt. Not the unreasonable doubt of the wild-eyed heckler, but the evidence-based doubt of the questioning scientist and the reason-based doubt of the skilled debater." Author: Seth Godin

"By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt." Author: Simon Greenleaf