Criminal law comprises different burdens, each burden is applied differently to different situations and carries a different weight. Beyond a reasonable doubt is applicable where a criminal defendant of a crime can only be convicted by meeting the standard of proof. Juries are informed by judges in all criminal trials that the guilty verdict can only be imposed on a defendant only if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides for the reasonable doubt in court proceedings. Conviction of crime occurs after absolute certainty of a person’s guilt. If an accused person does not willingly plead guilty, the jury has to be convinced that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” (Yallop, 2014). The origin of reasonable doubt dates back to Christian moral theology, whereby the reasonable doubt was purposely concerned with protecting jurors against damnation. The old Christian tradition regarded conviction of innocent defendants as a mortal sin. There was, therefore, a need for jurors to be reassured that they could convict defendants without putting their salvation at risk. This was as long as their doubts about guilt were “reasonable”. Understanding the origin makes us realise that the rule was never formulated to protect the accused, but to make conviction easier for jurors in the 1770’s and 1780’s era (Whitman, 2005) .
There are conflicting theories as to when precisely the reasonable doubt standard became a fixture of the American jurisprudence. According to Kenney (1995), the reasonable standard became law in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century. By then many people were already aware of it, and it had become accepted as the correct description of the level of doubt necessary for convicting a criminal. Different state courts recognised the standard gradually within their timeline. The steady acceptance of the reasonable doubt was affirmed by the judiciary’s attempts to find its correct meaning and interpretation. Case law and legal treaties provided a platform for the standard to be frequently used, enabling its application in convicting any criminal offence. It was a result of it becoming the uniformly applied standard for the degree of doubt. The beyond doubt standard also ensured that jurors did not use popular opinion to decide whether an offender was guilty or innocent as they paid more attention to the cases’ relevant information.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Background
Mistaken release or false conviction are some of the risks borne the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The concept is too delicate that most courts have opined that further definition of the concept could lead to further confusion and no clarification of the term. The main reason why the standard was put up initially in the mid-nineteenth century, was for “moral certainty”. At the time, moral certainty was regarded as the highest possible degree of certainty compared to mathematical certainty. This goes to show how much weight the standard carried, for it was supposed to mean the highest possible level of inductive certainty (Levi, 2012).
The beyond reasonable doubt standard is of essential importance in the free society as individuals going about with their daily activities know that “utmost certainty” demonstrated by proper facts of one’s criminal offence is required by the judicial system to pronounce anyone guilty of a criminal offence (Lee,2015).
The conviction of innocent people occurs frequently; this has been proven by post-conviction analysis that digs deep into activities such as DNA analysis. Investigative works post-conviction have shown how the system has failed to protect innocent people leading to them serving years in prison over crimes they did not commit. As declared by the Blackstone “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer” The beyond reasonable standard, ensures that the jury only convicts when they are sure of guilt (Teichman, 2018) . This means that cases undergo thorough analysis before conviction is made, therefore reducing the chances that someone would be sentenced when innocent.
Literature Review
The O.J Simpson case provides an excellent example of the concept of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. According to BBC (2017), Simpson was accused of the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. Substantial incriminating evidence against Simpson was present making most people believe that he was guilty. Some of the evidence presented included; his DNA at the scene of the crime, presence of blood in his car and eyewitnesses.
To prove his innocence, Simpson assembled a legal ‘dream team’ whose main purpose was to create doubt in the mind of the jurors with regards to his guilt. A highlight of the trial occurred when Simpson tried on a bloody leather glove in the courtroom, this love had been found in the murder scene. Simpson was able to show that his hand could not fit into it prompting the lead defence counsel Johnnie Cochrane to declare in his closing argument “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” He also presented addition fifteen points of reasonable doubt in the case. In a span of four days, deliberations regarding Simpson’s case occurred, and the Jury found Simpson not guilty on both counts of murder.
Discussion and Analysis
A background look into the case, reveals that there was mishandling of evidence, a significant fingerprint at Nicole Brow’s gateway was not properly collected. Other items of evidence were also not logged into the chain of custody implying a shoddy forensic collection had occurred at the scene There were photos taken without proper labelling, cross-contamination due to separate evidence being bagged together and packaging of wet evidence before allowing them to dry (CrimeMuseum,2017). According to Noble (1995), the defence team was also able to manipulate the media by making the case all about racism perpetuated by the Los Angeles Police Department. One of the detectives investigating the case Mark Fuhrman regularly used the n-word, Cochran, therefore, turned the trial’s focus on him a move that is believed to have impacted the jury’s sway.
According to Kolata (1995), if forensic science, would have been appropriately used in the case of OJ Simpson, the results would have been different. Scientific evidence should have been in the centre stage, the DNA found at the crime scene and in Simpson’s home was enough to provide physical proof to convict Simpson, if only forensic science would have been appropriately utilised. By wrong handling of evidence, the police provided a means for the defence team to create all sorts of doubts in the minds of the jurors. Many experts report that the apparent mishandling of evidence by the LAPD as seem in OJ’s case, typically shows what occurs in many low-profile instances in which the defendants are mostly too poor to mount a counterattack leading to the wrongful conviction of innocent people.
Conclusion
One of the most significant tenets of criminal law is that a person can only be convicted of a crime only when his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The core idea of this standard is to reduce the conviction of innocent defendants in the legal system by taking all necessary precautions against false convictions. Over time, many arguments have been brought forward, with whether this standard is justifiable or not. Understanding beyond reasonable doubt is quite a challenge; this has led to some courts banning the definition of the standard to minimise confusion. The concept of beyond reasonable doubt is essential for the legal system to ensure right convictions, therefore, reducing the conviction of innocent people, which has been on the rise. It also builds people trust and confidence in the American Law as they are made aware that they may not be convicted for crimes until evidence to prove them guilty is presented. The case of OJ Simpson was a good illustration of the beyond reasonable doubt concept, as it highlighted how regardless all evidence pointing to him, the jury found him innocent. The defence team was able to question the evidence, therefore, creating doubts in the mind of the jurors. It is, however, necessary for all evidence collected for a case, to be handled well, to prevent guilty people from using it to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
References
BBC. (2017, July 20). OJ Simpson trials: Where are they now? Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40667329
CrimeMuseum. (2017). Forensics at the OJ Simpson Trial - Crime Museum. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/famous-murders/forensic-investigation-of-the-oj-simpson-trial/
Kenney, S. (1995). Fifth Amendment. Upholding the Constitutional Merit of Misleading Reasonable Doubt Jury Instructions. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) , 85 (4), 989. doi:10.2307/1144091
Kolata, G. (1995, October 11). Simpson Trial Shows Need for Proper Use of Forensic Science, ExpertsSay. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/11/us/simpson-trial-shows-need-for-proper-use-of-forensic-science-expertssay.html
Lee, Y. J. (2015). Reasonable Doubt and Moral Elements. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 105 (1), 1-39. Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7544&context=jclc
Levi, Y. C. (2012). Making Sense Of Reasonable Doubt: Understanding Certainty, Doubt, And Rule-Based Bias Filtering. American University Criminal Law Brief , 8 (1), 48-62. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1091&context=clb
Noble, K. B. (1995, January 14). Issue of Racism Erupts in Simpson Trial. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/14/us/issue-of-racism-erupts-in-simpson-trial.html
Teichman, D. (2018). Convicting With Reasonable Doubt: An Evidentiary Theory of Criminal Law. Notre Dame Law Review , 93 (2), 1-55. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4766&context=ndlr
Whitman, J. Q. (2005). The Origins of "Reasonable Doubt". Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository , 1-169. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=fss_papers
Yallop, D. A. (2014). Beyond reasonable doubt? Hodder & Stoughton.
