Juries NEVER Find A Criminal Defendant Innocent

Does American law define “reasonable doubt”…?! Because if what you’re saying is true, then American ‘justice’ is bunk – there can never be doubt that is considered “reasonable” such a concept simply does not exist – this is why I’m glad I live in s country that doesn’t practice capital punishment, because my core augment against its legality is that “reasonable doubt” doesn’t exist, indeed it cannot exist, and corpses can’t be pardoned and go on to have some semblance of a life.

The only way “beyond reasonable doubt” can exist is if humans were perfect beings, but we’re not; if someone is handed a prison term, and it’s later found they’re innocent, they can be released, but what about the innocent man put to death…? Where’s his justice…?

In Scotland, the jury decides if a defendant is ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’ or ‘not proven (either way)’ (i.e. the jury cannot decide one way or t’other)) which seems a far fairer system (if not proven, then a date is set for a retrial)

But, as any reasonable-minded person will attest, there’s no such thing as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and to claim otherwise is dishonest and any law professional believing otherwise is a disgrace to the profession.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.