When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
Ask Karen from Facebook.
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
That is the point. What’s reasonable is reasonable to the lay person, untrained in any legal way.
So you decide ‘reasonable’ based on what you have seen in court.
use reason
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
That is the point. What’s reasonable is reasonable to the lay person, untrained in any legal way.
So you decide ‘reasonable’ based on what you have seen in court.
OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
That is the point. What’s reasonable is reasonable to the lay person, untrained in any legal way.
So you decide ‘reasonable’ based on what you have seen in court.
OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
that’s probably why there are 12 people. Actually if you want a really good example of how ‘reasonable doubt’ works you should watch the movie 12 angry men. It’s old and dated, but shows this concept very well.
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:That is the point. What’s reasonable is reasonable to the lay person, untrained in any legal way.
So you decide ‘reasonable’ based on what you have seen in court.
OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
that’s probably why there are 12 people. Actually if you want a really good example of how ‘reasonable doubt’ works you should watch the movie 12 angry men. It’s old and dated, but shows this concept very well.
Yes. A great stage play, too.
In beyond reasonable doubt, “reasonable” is used in the sense of using reason to remove doubt.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
That is the point. What’s reasonable is reasonable to the lay person, untrained in any legal way.
So you decide ‘reasonable’ based on what you have seen in court.
OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
also, it’s not really about wondering which way to vote. You are supposed to, as a juror, allow yourself to weigh up the defence and prosecution arguments without preconceived notions. The defence is often trying to make you have reasonable doubt, while the prosecution is trying to remove reasonable doubt… that the defendant committed the offence. Most times, if you go into a trial with an idea of guilt or not you won’t even make it past jury selection.
Michael V said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
that’s probably why there are 12 people. Actually if you want a really good example of how ‘reasonable doubt’ works you should watch the movie 12 angry men. It’s old and dated, but shows this concept very well.
Yes. A great stage play, too.
In beyond reasonable doubt, “reasonable” is used in the sense of using reason to remove doubt.
yes, this is why defence lawyers often attack processes and procedures of people handling exhibits and of scientific techniques, rather than client actions. Once known inconsistency in these processes and procedures can secure acquittal.
in the sense of ‘if it doesn’t fit you must acquit’.
The presumption of innocence is also a grey area.
I mean when the guilty prick is in the dock he’s not there because the old bill and authorities presumes the prick’s innocent
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
i’d guess it psychologically defers to what another reasonable person (and another jury, or judge) might arrive at if it were heard in a different time and by different people. That the outcome could reasonably be expected to be substantially the same, reproducibility if you like
i’d argue no reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt may be slightly different, while i’m at it
beyond as is generally used implies a judgement call, no reasonable doubt may not
Arts said:
Michael V said:
Arts said:that’s probably why there are 12 people. Actually if you want a really good example of how ‘reasonable doubt’ works you should watch the movie 12 angry men. It’s old and dated, but shows this concept very well.
Yes. A great stage play, too.
In beyond reasonable doubt, “reasonable” is used in the sense of using reason to remove doubt.
yes, this is why defence lawyers often attack processes and procedures of people handling exhibits and of scientific techniques, rather than client actions. Once known inconsistency in these processes and procedures can secure acquittal.
in the sense of ‘if it doesn’t fit you must acquit’.
Like a glove eh…
Arts said:
Michael V said:
Arts said:that’s probably why there are 12 people. Actually if you want a really good example of how ‘reasonable doubt’ works you should watch the movie 12 angry men. It’s old and dated, but shows this concept very well.
Yes. A great stage play, too.
In beyond reasonable doubt, “reasonable” is used in the sense of using reason to remove doubt.
yes, this is why defence lawyers often attack processes and procedures of people handling exhibits and of scientific techniques, rather than client actions. Once known inconsistency in these processes and procedures can secure acquittal.
in the sense of ‘if it doesn’t fit you must acquit’.
a good defense lawyer knows of the inherent weakness of all efforts at constructions, knows of the weaknesses in the enthusiasm for them
I suspect The Rev may even be talking about some engineering applications here. You need to design out ‘risk’ but the question is, “how far do you have to go?”
sibeen said:
I suspect The Rev may even be talking about some engineering applications here. You need to design out ‘risk’ but the question is, “how far do you have to go?”
And there’s the rub, it’s there if you are dealing with a road toll, setting a safe working load or a virus outbreak.
sibeen said:
I suspect The Rev may even be talking about some engineering applications here. You need to design out ‘risk’ but the question is, “how far do you have to go?”
Indeed I am, and the differences in the meaning of the word “reasonable” in the two applications.
In fact I had not really fully appreciated the ambiguity of the word before today.
In the engineering sense the words “so far as is reasonably practicable” mean you don’t have to worry about designing a building to withstand a meteor impact, because that is not only very unlikely, but also there is no way you can do it. On the other hand you do have to design a balcony so it won’t collapse even if it is loaded by 20 drunken Irishmen, because that is quite easily done, and has a fairly high chance of happening (even in California).
I had always assumed that the legal usage was much the same, i.e. that you should not reject evidence of innocence unless the probability of it being true was so small as to be negligible.
But what if it just means that you should follow a reasoned process in your considerations? Does that mean you have to vote not guilty even if your estimate of the probability of the evidence being true is 1 to the minus googolplex?
And if that probability is close enough to zero to be considered zero, what is the smallest non-zero number, in a legal context?
Peak Warming Man said:
sibeen said:
I suspect The Rev may even be talking about some engineering applications here. You need to design out ‘risk’ but the question is, “how far do you have to go?”
And there’s the rub, it’s there if you are dealing with a road toll, setting a safe working load or a virus outbreak.
It’s good to see that at least my fellow engineers know what I’m talking about :)
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:That is the point. What’s reasonable is reasonable to the lay person, untrained in any legal way.
So you decide ‘reasonable’ based on what you have seen in court.
OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
also, it’s not really about wondering which way to vote. You are supposed to, as a juror, allow yourself to weigh up the defence and prosecution arguments without preconceived notions. The defence is often trying to make you have reasonable doubt, while the prosecution is trying to remove reasonable doubt… that the defendant committed the offence. Most times, if you go into a trial with an idea of guilt or not you won’t even make it past jury selection.
Clearly it is “reasonable” that jurors should not reach any conclusions about a particular case before they have heard the evidence, but surely they are allowed to think about what sort of evidence might give rise to “reasonable doubt”, in a general sort of way.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
sibeen said:
I suspect The Rev may even be talking about some engineering applications here. You need to design out ‘risk’ but the question is, “how far do you have to go?”
And there’s the rub, it’s there if you are dealing with a road toll, setting a safe working load or a virus outbreak.
It’s good to see that at least my fellow engineers know what I’m talking about :)
One of the jobs I am currently working on is a direct result of ‘risk management’. A few years ago I had a job to do a building review and re-design due to a problem that had been picked up on another building the client owned. During the investigation I discovered that during previous designs there had been a communication failure between departments which resulted in some very poor decisions being made and potential fault currents that vastly exceeded the design specifications of the main switchboards in the building. Basically, if there had been a major fault within the switchboards there was a high probability that the fault couldn’t be maintained within the switchboard and injury and loss of life could be a result.
The client was a bit “shit, this thing is 15 years old, I don’t want to spend money fixing it”. I shrugged my shoulders and sent them an engineering notice.
Client “what’s this?”
Me “it’s an engineering notice that lays out the issue with the site.”
Client “So why did you send it to me?”
Me “Well, I have to cover my arse. If someone now gets hurt because of this I’m sweet as I’ve notified you people.”
Client “But there does that leave us?”
Me “Oh, some of you would probably be going to gaol.”
Client “We best raise a job then.”
:)
In this particular case it really was a complete cock-up by previous engineers and something had to be done.
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
i’d guess it psychologically defers to what another reasonable person (and another jury, or judge) might arrive at if it were heard in a different time and by different people. That the outcome could reasonably be expected to be substantially the same, reproducibility if you like
i’d argue no reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt may be slightly different, while i’m at it
beyond as is generally used implies a judgement call, no reasonable doubt may not
That’s interesting.
I’d take “beyond reasonable doubt” to imply a lower tolerance of doubt than “no reasonable doubt”, but you seem to be saying the opposite.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
also, it’s not really about wondering which way to vote. You are supposed to, as a juror, allow yourself to weigh up the defence and prosecution arguments without preconceived notions. The defence is often trying to make you have reasonable doubt, while the prosecution is trying to remove reasonable doubt… that the defendant committed the offence. Most times, if you go into a trial with an idea of guilt or not you won’t even make it past jury selection.
Clearly it is “reasonable” that jurors should not reach any conclusions about a particular case before they have heard the evidence, but surely they are allowed to think about what sort of evidence might give rise to “reasonable doubt”, in a general sort of way.
well, they are not supposed to. This is what the CSI effect is.
there is a long chain of common law precedent behind trying to establish what is a “reasonable person”. It is probably not defined by legislation, but by legal precedent. The man on the Clapham Omnibus and all that.
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:also, it’s not really about wondering which way to vote. You are supposed to, as a juror, allow yourself to weigh up the defence and prosecution arguments without preconceived notions. The defence is often trying to make you have reasonable doubt, while the prosecution is trying to remove reasonable doubt… that the defendant committed the offence. Most times, if you go into a trial with an idea of guilt or not you won’t even make it past jury selection.
Clearly it is “reasonable” that jurors should not reach any conclusions about a particular case before they have heard the evidence, but surely they are allowed to think about what sort of evidence might give rise to “reasonable doubt”, in a general sort of way.
well, they are not supposed to. This is what the CSI effect is.
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:also, it’s not really about wondering which way to vote. You are supposed to, as a juror, allow yourself to weigh up the defence and prosecution arguments without preconceived notions. The defence is often trying to make you have reasonable doubt, while the prosecution is trying to remove reasonable doubt… that the defendant committed the offence. Most times, if you go into a trial with an idea of guilt or not you won’t even make it past jury selection.
Clearly it is “reasonable” that jurors should not reach any conclusions about a particular case before they have heard the evidence, but surely they are allowed to think about what sort of evidence might give rise to “reasonable doubt”, in a general sort of way.
well, they are not supposed to. This is what the CSI effect is.
Just looked up CSI effect.
I really don’t see how contemplating what is meant by the words “reasonable doubt” would lead to a higher likelihood of incorrect verdicts. Surely if the contemplation is done in a reasonably reasoned manner it would lead to more reasonable results.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Clearly it is “reasonable” that jurors should not reach any conclusions about a particular case before they have heard the evidence, but surely they are allowed to think about what sort of evidence might give rise to “reasonable doubt”, in a general sort of way.
well, they are not supposed to. This is what the CSI effect is.
Just looked up CSI effect.
I really don’t see how contemplating what is meant by the words “reasonable doubt” would lead to a higher likelihood of incorrect verdicts. Surely if the contemplation is done in a reasonably reasoned manner it would lead to more reasonable results.
if. In a perfect world we would choose a jury that brings in no outside influence, listens to the proceedings and makes their decision based on what evidence is presented. This is where reasonable doubt in a legal setting is ideal. Based on what I have seen and heard within this space am I convinced that the accused is innocent or guilty?
but we don’t live in a perfect world and this is the reason that people with any sort of understanding of the legal system ask for a judge only trial…
As you said “to think about what sort of evidence might give rise to “reasonable doubt”,”
the type of evidence should NOT give rise to doubt reasonable or otherwise.. that is – the presence of DNA should not hold more power over the absence of DNA (this is the CSI effect and we know it leads to incorrect verdicts.. where DNA is presented the jury is MORE likely to convict, where it is absent they are more likely to not convict – but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?)
what the evidence suggests or implies, is what is reasonable. Does the evidence presented (not the evidence not presented) make enough sense to you to convince you that the accused is innocent or guilty.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
i’d guess it psychologically defers to what another reasonable person (and another jury, or judge) might arrive at if it were heard in a different time and by different people. That the outcome could reasonably be expected to be substantially the same, reproducibility if you like
i’d argue no reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt may be slightly different, while i’m at it
beyond as is generally used implies a judgement call, no reasonable doubt may not
That’s interesting.
I’d take “beyond reasonable doubt” to imply a lower tolerance of doubt than “no reasonable doubt”, but you seem to be saying the opposite.
beyond tends to be used in a particular context, or regard a particular context, of law, processes related, whereas the statement no reasonable doubt _ taken on it’s literal propositional content seems more absolute
from the little I know
beyond may imply process that took whatever beyond, so doesn’t tend to obliviate reference to process
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:i’d guess it psychologically defers to what another reasonable person (and another jury, or judge) might arrive at if it were heard in a different time and by different people. That the outcome could reasonably be expected to be substantially the same, reproducibility if you like
i’d argue no reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt may be slightly different, while i’m at it
beyond as is generally used implies a judgement call, no reasonable doubt may not
That’s interesting.
I’d take “beyond reasonable doubt” to imply a lower tolerance of doubt than “no reasonable doubt”, but you seem to be saying the opposite.
beyond tends to be used in a particular context, or regard a particular context, of law, processes related, whereas the statement no reasonable doubt taken on it’s literal propositional content seems more absolute
from the little I know
beyond may imply process that took whatever beyond, so doesn’t tend to obliviate reference to process
fixed
Assumptions that the fact the person is going to trial means evidence exists good enough to prosecute them in the first place could mean a verdict of guilty if returned.
It can also be about getting a reasonable sentence (mitigating circumstances as why they did what they did ) as evidence will convict them.
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:well, they are not supposed to. This is what the CSI effect is.
Just looked up CSI effect.
I really don’t see how contemplating what is meant by the words “reasonable doubt” would lead to a higher likelihood of incorrect verdicts. Surely if the contemplation is done in a reasonably reasoned manner it would lead to more reasonable results.
if. In a perfect world we would choose a jury that brings in no outside influence, listens to the proceedings and makes their decision based on what evidence is presented. This is where reasonable doubt in a legal setting is ideal. Based on what I have seen and heard within this space am I convinced that the accused is innocent or guilty?
but we don’t live in a perfect world and this is the reason that people with any sort of understanding of the legal system ask for a judge only trial…
As you said “to think about what sort of evidence might give rise to “reasonable doubt”,”
the type of evidence should NOT give rise to doubt reasonable or otherwise.. that is – the presence of DNA should not hold more power over the absence of DNA (this is the CSI effect and we know it leads to incorrect verdicts.. where DNA is presented the jury is MORE likely to convict, where it is absent they are more likely to not convict – but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?)
what the evidence suggests or implies, is what is reasonable. Does the evidence presented (not the evidence not presented) make enough sense to you to convince you that the accused is innocent or guilty.
OK, suppose I had the same thoughts as you have presented above, and reached the same conclusion. Wouldn’t that result in me being more likely to reach a correct conclusion?
Of course, I might consider the same facts and reach an opposite conclusion. Then it would depend on whose conclusion was more correct (or at least less wrong), but surely thinking about it is better than not thinking about it.
As for how much reliance should be placed on DNA evidence, that would depend on the nature of the evidence and the other evidence, but in principle surely it may be reasonable to give greater weight to properly collected DNA evidence than say a person with poor eyesight thinking they may have seen the accused entering a building late at night.
And I disagree with the oft stated claim that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. It is not proof of absence, but it is evidence, and in some cases it might be quite good evidence; that is if it is “reasonable” to suppose that the event would have left such evidence, if it had actually occurred.
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:i’d guess it psychologically defers to what another reasonable person (and another jury, or judge) might arrive at if it were heard in a different time and by different people. That the outcome could reasonably be expected to be substantially the same, reproducibility if you like
i’d argue no reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt may be slightly different, while i’m at it
beyond as is generally used implies a judgement call, no reasonable doubt may not
That’s interesting.
I’d take “beyond reasonable doubt” to imply a lower tolerance of doubt than “no reasonable doubt”, but you seem to be saying the opposite.
beyond tends to be used in a particular context, or regard a particular context, of law, processes related, whereas the statement no reasonable doubt _ taken on it’s literal propositional content seems more absolute
from the little I know
beyond may imply process that took whatever beyond, so doesn’t tend to obliviate reference to process
You may be right.
(In this one isolated case :))
That’s why ut was interesting.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
When a law states that decisions must be based on having no reasonable doubt, or that risks must be removed or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, how is any individual supposed to decide what is “reasonable”?
That is the point. What’s reasonable is reasonable to the lay person, untrained in any legal way.
So you decide ‘reasonable’ based on what you have seen in court.
OK, but what is reasonable seems pretty fuzzy to me. If the reasonableness was close to the “boundary”, I really don’t know how I’d decide which way to vote.
Agree.
The whole purpose of the Jury system, so far as i can tell, is because it makes it difficult for a convicted felon to exact revenge against 12 (supposedly) anonymous people. It would be much easier for a convicted felon to have a revenge killing against a single judge, and many judges have died that way.
Not every country, or even every court within one country, has the “innocent until proved guilty” clause. If police arrest and charge someone then they have to be sure that the person is guilty before sending them for trial. So it makes sense to have “guilty until proved innocent”, anything else assumes that the police are corrupt or incompetent.
Another one that worries me is that the jury is not allowed to ask for clarification.
As for reasonable doubt. That one worries me, too. There ought to be a sensible way to define it. There has to be a chain of evidence linking the perpetrator to the crime. Is the chain complete or is there a gap in it? When scientific evidence is presented, different types of scientific evidence have different probability of correctness. Being aware of analysis techniques, you can determine reliability – being aware of how science can fail, you can check for use of faulty logic.
Let’s suppose someone is presented on the evidence of an identity parade. You know that that is not enough on its own. Ditto facial recognition from security cameras. Ditto bite marks. What about tyre tracks? How accurate is a psychologist’s assessment?
If you as a juror catch the plaintiff out in a lie, that is not sufficient on its own to prove guilt. Means, motive and opportunity. You don’t necessarily need all three but there has to be more than one, unless it’s means. For example in possession of a recently fired surface to air missile can count as means.
I was present at one trial where the defence argued that the victim had put themselves in danger by reckless behaviour. It’s the jury’s job to determine if this argument is reasonable, in my case I judged that it wasn’t. A friend of the victim alleged brain damage in the form of memory loss, and I didn’t see that claim as reasonable without independent confirmation.
If you want a cast iron way to determine reasonable doubt, assign a probability to each link in the chain of evidence, multiply it out, and apply your favourite P-value to the result.