Do you think the requirements for a guilty verdict should be more strict?

[tzhu07]

Instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt", change it to "no doubt"?

[Atropine]

No

I work in an Emergency Room in Tacoma...I see shitbags walk all the time over bullshit.

I have seen child rapers get off on technicalities.

A few years ago...4 policemen were executed in Lakewood at a Starbucks.

They came to my hospital.

The asshole who killed them...was wrongfully let out because jail was too full.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewoo...ficer_shooting

So yeah...keep the assholes in jails.

@OP if you actually committed a crime and are just pissed that you got spanked...buck up and take your medicine and and quit committing crimes.

Most common complaint is the "I didn't fail my field sobriety test, but I blew over the legal limit".

Those people..deserve their DUIs. I don't give a fuck if you can recite the alphabet. Don't drink and drive.

[TylerLieberman]

It's fine. If anything, possibly a little less strict.

Too many instances where people get let go because of one stupid little piece of a story missing that would not change the outcome of what happened.

"Where were you on August 1 2014?"
"Denny's"
"What did you eat?"
"A sandwich"
"What kind of sandwich?"
"I can't remember"
"Not guilty"

[n2oinferno]

Wouldn't the only way for there to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever be for the entire jury to have actually witnessed the crime as it took place?

[ZionsWrath]

Exactly, the only way for there to be no doubt is if the crime is recorder or the jury witnessed it. If an eye witness testified, how can the jury be sure he isn't lying or maybe isn't 100% reliable?

Sure the system has flaws. But having had an encounter with it I would say it has positives and negatives but for an average case it does OK.

We could argue for ages about "the system" but unless you can detail a 10,000 page reformation of it with all kinds of rules regulations and contingencies, I don't really see the point in saying something as simple as the OP.

[eyedeez]

Paralegal here:

In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. If you had to assign percentages to weigh "guilt" in a criminal proceeding, it would be in the upper 90th percentile - maybe even close to 100% - so it is already close to "no doubt". Now, have innocent people been found guilty? Yes. However, if the prosecution has not put together a solid case (i.e. there were errors in the collection of evidence, unreliable witnesses, and so forth), than the defendant can use those weaknesses to offer a logical explanation that counters the prosecution. If there is any doubt, based on the evidence, the jury has an obligation to say so and the case may be dismissed. Trying criminal cases is very challenging, and the standard of proof is very high because we want to avoid putting innocent people in jail.

Interesting to note, the standard of proof in a civil proceeding is by the preponderance of the evidence. Assigning a numerical value to this standard of proof could fall somewhere around 51% (or perhaps lower). Quite a big difference when compared to a criminal proceeding.

Any district attorney's or criminal defense attorney's that want to chime in?

[husker741]

Originally Posted by tzhu07

Instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt", change it to "no doubt"?

Just wondering, how old are you?