Saturday, August 7, 2010

Proof in criminal cases must be ';beyond a reasonable doubt'; for there to be a conviction.?

Is such a high standard likely to lead to many guilty defendants getting off?Proof in criminal cases must be ';beyond a reasonable doubt'; for there to be a conviction.?
If the prosecutor can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you aren't guilty.Proof in criminal cases must be ';beyond a reasonable doubt'; for there to be a conviction.?
Ultimately, it shouldn't. There aren't many defenses one can use in a criminal case. Yes, it's a burden or proof for the prosecutor, but the hardest thing for a defense attorney to do is scrutinize the exchanged discovery documents to try to find ANY inconsistencies between what was studied pre-trial to what is said in court. Another thing that must be done is that whole identification proof. Though there have been times where the wrong convicted person ends up in the courtroom, it's basically impossible for a defense attorney to prove they've got the wrong person. Prosecutors have such solid hear it all the time-it's extremely rare for the defendant to win a case.

But it also depends on each state. For instance, here in New Jersey, our courts are for the time being at least liberal, so it's pro-defendant. Other states are conservative. But nevertheless, the defense attorney really doesn't have much to go on. Between the police to the prosecutor...they all make sure they abide by the code of conduct so that no evidence can be suppressed. There are stupid ones that make stupid mistakes though...
I've heard that in the past there have been people convicted who didn't do the deed but who had a public defender so they got stuck in jail anyway. All criminals say they didn't do it, but now dna is the proof of the pudding so there is no doubt in a huge amount of the cases.

Attorneys are there to represent their client no matter whether guilty or not, and if they are paid then they must fight for their innocense. It is in that quirk in the justice system coupled with that specific (not all) attorney's expertise if the person will get off or not.
nope.. the general rule is a prosecutor has a 90% conviction rate....further, 85% of convictions are plea bargains....prosecutors lose twice as many trials as they win....if they were good at their jobs instead of taking a cushy government job they would be in the private sector
When the standard is upheld yes.

But the reverse is worse. If an innocent person is convicted, than the guilty man also gets off. So if the standard is too low, it becomes a double wammy
Yes, a lot of them get off. The idea is that it's better to let a guilty man off than to convict an innocent one.

No comments:

Post a Comment