I would have a very hard time on a jury. unless the evidence is absolutely irrefutable (it was physically impossible for this person not to have committed a crime) then there's a chance the person could be falsely convicted. I think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is just not realistic for most people, or maybe I just find too many doubts reasonable.
then again, even though I like to think of myself even headed and eager to embrace diversity, I know I have my prejudices; and I honestly can't say whether I'd be able to set them aside and not be effected by them when the time came. I was called for jury duty once and I couldn't tell the judge honestly that I could be impartial.
There are some prospective jurors who have a real problem differentiating between the concepts of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond all possible doubt." That's very common.
how is the distinction important? I don't even know which is applicable in court. I suppose "all reasonable..." would be the one, but I'm not sure.
beyond a reasonable doubt... that would mean we are given only one doubt to decide over. that would make jury duty easier, but it wouldn't have much to do with justice.
beyond all reasonable doubt... would mean I can come up with my own doubts and determine whether doubts raised by others are reasonable. sounds better.
do I have that right?
My problem wouldn't have much to do with this. I think I might have too easy a time finding doubts that are in my opinion reasonable. Then again, if I don't like the person being tried, I cannot say how hard I would try to find doubts. It's terrible... I know. The case I might have been a juror for was this fella who had allegedly raped a little girl. The thought of it made me extremely angry and the look on the guy's face... I had decided he was guilty already. I wonder how many of the other prospective jurors felt the same way.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
then again, even though I like to think of myself even headed and eager to embrace diversity, I know I have my prejudices; and I honestly can't say whether I'd be able to set them aside and not be effected by them when the time came. I was called for jury duty once and I couldn't tell the judge honestly that I could be impartial.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
beyond a reasonable doubt... that would mean we are given only one doubt to decide over. that would make jury duty easier, but it wouldn't have much to do with justice.
beyond all reasonable doubt... would mean I can come up with my own doubts and determine whether doubts raised by others are reasonable. sounds better.
do I have that right?
My problem wouldn't have much to do with this. I think I might have too easy a time finding doubts that are in my opinion reasonable. Then again, if I don't like the person being tried, I cannot say how hard I would try to find doubts. It's terrible... I know. The case I might have been a juror for was this fella who had allegedly raped a little girl. The thought of it made me extremely angry and the look on the guy's face... I had decided he was guilty already. I wonder how many of the other prospective jurors felt the same way.