Don't you think the words, beyond a doubt. in a trial should be changed,?

Question

So people like OJ won't get away with murder. If the jury thinks your guilty and even the lawyers think your guilty then justice should be served.

Answer 1

It isn't "beyond a doubt," it is "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" which means the jury does not have to find a defendant guilty "beyond the shadow of a doubt," i.e., any doubt at all, but only beyond a reasonable doubt.



I don't think the O.J. trial is a good example of American juris prudence. We all think (know) he was guilty, but we weren't in the jury room.



I have served on juries and in one murder case, we found a defendant "not guilty." We all believed he was guilty, but the state just had not proven its case, creating enough reasonable doubt that we could not convict with a clear conscience.



When you're on a jury and you are literally holding another human being's fate in your hands, you want to be absolutely certain before you find a defendant guilty. I cannot think of anything worse than condemning an innocent man or woman to prison or, in some states, death.



Many, many years ago, Benjamin Franklin said, "It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer." This is still true today.

Answer 2

When his legal rights goes, then so does yours (your friends and family) and everyone's else. DNA evidence has freeded many people falsely accused, arrested, tried in court and sentenced to many years in prison. How could the jury believe the testimony of some of the ones with the responsibility of investigating the case - when the investigator who "found" the glove later was heard on tapes played in court making extreme racist statements about blacks and then lied underoath about his racist comments.The chief investigator of the entire case admitted under oath in court that he took a vial sample of OJ's blood from the lab and carried it INTO the crime scenes. The glove didn't fit, no weapon was found and there weren't any witnesses. A video taken by paparazzi showed Nicole, OJ, Denise and their family nicely talking to each other after attending the daughter's dance recital - just a few short hours before the crime (getting along well). OJ's slow speed drive at 30mph back to his own house means nothing. The jury was taken to visit OJ's house and didn't see a lot of evidence of anything connected to the crime. Some may disagree with the jury verdict but they didn't see the required evidence to convict. OJ has always maintained his innocence. Take a look at the Emmitt Till case where a young boy was murdered by two men who admitted their guilt but still was found not guilty - they later bragged about it in Look Magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

Answer 3

If you have ever been on a jury then you will know how hard it can be

If the jury thinks you are guilty then you are but witnesses have to be known to have told the truth and the proof has to be 100% especially where a state has the death penalty.

Answer 4

No I do not think they should be changed. Not even especially for the reason you quote.



If they are are removed in order to get people like OJ, then they will have been removed for everyone. If it then happens that you yourself gets charged for an offence that you believe you did not commit, you could fall victim to the removal of these same words and get convicted.



Those words protect us all.

Answer 5

To do so would undermine the intent of our founding fathers and change the essence of America, inviting even more of a police state than that already created by King George.

Answer 6

it's called "reasonable doubt"...oj got away because he played the race card ...if the jury thinks you are guilty, they convict.....your lawyer has to give you fair representation, regardless of his/her feelings of guilt...that's our system

Answer 7

there is a debate about this, its called fully informed juries

read up on it...