I have seen countless cases in the UK and America where the principle of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in the justice system seems to have been replaced with the ‘we’re unsure so we’ll flip a coin’ system and thereby condemn somebody to life in prison. You can have a hung jury 6 to 6 and a retrial is ordered. The second trial ends hung again and the third takes 2 days of deliberations. This is a perfect example of 36 jury members exhibiting reasonable doubt, before they eventually jail the accused for life. The principle of beyond a reasonable doubt has clearly been abandoned.
In many cases the jury are umming and arring for large swathes of the deliberations, unsure about the accused guilt or innocence, before feeling compelled to reach a decision. Indecision is the perfect example of reasonable doubt and to convict on such a premise is inherently flawed. Often lawyers of the prosecution and defense are unsure of the outcome, as are the court observers, sometimes the case is finely balanced and in such circumstances an innocent verdict should always be returned, but this often seems to be ignored. If a jury is hung, the person should be acquitted, because by definition this jury as a whole are expressing reasonable doubt and law requires beyond a reasonable doubt for a safe conviction. You cannot keep flogging a dead horse over and over again until you reach the verdict you want. Whether you have a majority 10-2 system or 12-0 system, the case has to be compelling to convict. Locking somebody away for the rest of their lives surely requires a more responsible system than the current kangaroo courts we seem to be edging towards, built around speculation and hearsay. Beyond a reasonable doubt means just that, if doubt exists, you have to acquit. This may be unsavory to some, but surely when the accused is facing down the barrel of life imprisonment at best or a death sentence at worst, then a more robust system is a right we should want afforded to ourselves, so why should it be any different for anybody else.
Excellent analysis, UK! True, following your advice will result in some guilty parties being freed. On the other hand, some innocent parties will be saved from life imprisonment, or execution. Error is inevitable, so I say: Err on the side of Life.
One mans freedom is worth more than all the souls the devil has collected
The fact is that a more rigorous standard for criminal conviction would result in fewer of them. There are many people, for many reasons, who would not want to see less people getting sent to prison.
Let me put it this way, would you favor a system that ensured with total certainty that every person who was in prison was truly guilty…if it meant that far more guilty people ended up going free?
I’m sorry to say, but my studies of history, society, and law, and my personal experiences, and to no small degree the Zodiac case, leads me to believe that justice does not exist in this world. And that most people need to believe that a justice does exist, even if it is not real, or worse, even if it is actually a cruel injustice.
Let me put it this way, would you favor a system that ensured with total certainty that every person who was in prison was truly guilty…if it meant that far more guilty people ended up going free?
I suppose that depends on who takes the fall. If you were the innocent party who took the 60 years, to ensure a further five guilty people got jailed, I think you would say no, but if it’s somebody else’s life, it’s not personal anymore, it’s an unknown face, a statistic, it’s somebody else’s problem and I herald you may say yes. This is not a personal attack, but this is representative of the human race, including myself, in that we, in the main, only concern ourselves with injustice when it starts breathing on our own front door.
I don’t like to see criminals getting away with murder, nevertheless we have to maintain the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ principle more rigorously, because some people are effectively getting life in jail for evidence against them that is laughable, sometimes wholly on somebody else’s say so, in some cases the judge should laugh the case out of court. But what is very disturbing, is that sometimes these cases not only go to court, but they manage to find the only 12 people in the entire world who actually don’t care about evidence. There has to be a better vetting system for jurors, one that weeds out these people and implements a minimum IQ level, because it’s very worrying indeed.
As a footnote, watch this 9 minute clip of a cancer patient being absolutely ridiculed in an American court, it is probably the worst case of injustice I have ever seen in 53 years of life, it is sickening beyond belief and tell me if you think this is justice. You wouldn’t treat a dog like this and in my opinion the judge should be arrested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQ4a3Ja6cs
That story of terrible injustice Rich !!!
I remembered this case, that is not to doom the arrest of Robert H. Richards IV.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/03/31/american-justice-for-the-wealthy-no-prison-for-du-pont-heir-convicted-of-sexually-molesting-his-child-because-he-would-not-fare-well-in-jail/
"Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan Jurden noted that Mr. Richards would “not fare well” in prison and that Richards would gain far more benefit by participating in a sex offender program than he would were he to go to prison."
It is, therefore, an inverse and ,in this case, there was no reasonable doubt.
I think this judge, should also be arrested too
Marcelo
https://zodiacode1933.blogspot.com/
I suppose that depends on who takes the fall. If you were the innocent party who took the 60 years, to ensure a further five guilty people got jailed, I think you would say no, but if it’s somebody else’s life, it’s not personal anymore, it’s an unknown face, a statistic, it’s somebody else’s problem and I herald you may say yes.
Good point, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not saying that innocent people would go to jail. I’m saying that if only people who could be proven 100% guilty went to jail, many people who actually committed crimes, but who could not be proven 100% guilty, would end up getting away with it.
I imagine that most people in their gut would feel that was wrong. Their universal sense of justice says that people should pay for their crimes, and that is not fair.
On the other hand, the present system might be as fair as it can be. Some innocent people go to jail, some guilty people get away with it, but most people who are convicted actually deserve it. But if you said it like that people would also be uncomfortable and find that unjust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackston e’s_formulation
Restated by Benjamin Franklin — Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan (14 March 1785):
"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
I’m with Ben. Especially in this day and age with DNA testing, everyone being spied on, tracked, and monitored 24/7, if a case can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then innocent until proven guilty prevails.
I can’t stand the idea of an innocent person being jailed for years, and it happens too much and pisses me right off.
Not to mention that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and prisons that operate for profit.
But honestly, this thread verges on politics and probably should not even be on this board, IMO.
-glurk
——————————–
I don’t believe in monsters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackston e’s_formulation
Restated by Benjamin Franklin — Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan (14 March 1785):
"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"I’m with Ben. Especially in this day and age with DNA testing, everyone being spied on, tracked, and monitored 24/7, if a case can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then innocent until proven guilty prevails.
I can’t stand the idea of an innocent person being jailed for years, and it happens too much and pisses me right off.
Not to mention that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and prisons that operate for profit.But honestly, this thread verges on politics and probably should not even be on this board, IMO.
-glurk
I agree with this analysis but not the politics part, basically because this entire forum is based on the Zodiac murders and the seeking of truth and justice for the families and IF somebody was arrested or identified, then this board would shift into the judicial phase of whether such a person was guilty or innocent and where there is murder, there is justice and the two are inextricably linked.
Not to mention that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and prisons that operate for profit.
Glurk perfect !!I was thinking about it.
There has to be a better vetting system for jurors, one that weeds out these people and implements a minimum IQ level, because it’s very worrying indeed.
yes Uk
It would be interesting person of high IQ, however, I wonder if this has more to do with the intrinsic rage of man, for two reasons, the vanity of having the power of the fate of a stranger in his hands, and a thirst for revenge fueled by a society built more to hate than to compassion.
I do not mean I have compassion for criminals, but, I think, too, that if there is doubt regarding the guilt, no one can be condemned.
In my country, unfortunately, only poor, or black people suffer more, but that’s another point.
https://zodiacode1933.blogspot.com/
I agree with this analysis but not the politics part, basically because this entire forum is based on the Zodiac murders and the seeking of truth and justice for the families and IF somebody was arrested or identified, then this board would shift into the judicial phase of whether such a person was guilty or innocent and where there is murder, there is justice and the two are inextricably linked.
UKS-
I agree with you as well. This is something that should be open for discussion. I could really say a lot more about this stuff, my opinions, but will refrain for now. Good topic.
-glurk
——————————–
I don’t believe in monsters.
It is an interesting ethical dilemma. How many murders can we tolerate before we accept a single unfairly jailed person?
The Syrian refugee crisis has a similar formulation: On the one hand, the refugees will starve to death if they are not helped. On the other hand, the small risk of terrorism may lead to more murders. So, how many starved refugees can we tolerate before we accept the small risk of terrorism?
The "Trolley problem" does a good job of capturing this dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
If you can save 5 people by killing 1 person, would you do it? If you can save 500 people by killing 1 person, would you do it? And so on.
And what if that 1 person was someone you knew had a cure for a common and deadly disease?
It would always be difficult presented with an either or dilemma like the ones portrayed on Wikipedia, it’s a no win situation and the option to do nothing would probably prevail, citing the defense you didn’t initiate the situation. In terms of convictions it’s strange, because if a lifelong house burglar was jailed incorrectly for a murder he didn’t commit I wouldn’t give a damn, using the argument he eventually got what he deserved. Likewise Doranchak, if a man who had robbed houses for 30 years and was up in court for murder unrelated to his thieving, but he was of bad character, would the threshold of evidence you required to convict him come down compared to someone of good character, because even if he was innocent, your likelihood of losing any sleep over it, is low to zero.
I am studying this very matter right now in my CJ Evidence class. Just took my Midterm~ 
The thing is…it’s "reasonable doubt"…not "all doubt".
We do the best we can and unfortunately sometimes people who are not guilty get incarcerated. It’s tragic, sad, and infuriating–but it is what it is and we can only hope justice will ultimately prevail. This applies to those who are guilty and walk as well.
Hopefully, nowadays, those who are not guilty will be more easily distinguishable. There are also appellate courts, etc., which can help with any possible errors along the way. It seems (in general) every effort is made to give defendants the opportunity to prove themselves along the way. Of course it can be a timely, costly matter, and of course those with $$ always get the better deal–but, all hope is not lost.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
well, we were doing a good job of making this not political until y’all brought up racism, refugees, and the prison industrial complex.
BTW, that "trolley" problem isn’t that complicated. it’s a classical philosophy problem that essentially boils down to two branches of thought, deontology and utilitarianism. That first one is a fancy word that says you should always do the right thing and you are not responsible for circumstances outside of your control. So killing that dude is wrong, even if it saves the others. The second one means do the most good possible, even it means bad things happen. So kill the guy to save the rest. That’s all. Take your pick.
