Beyond Reasonable Doubt Standard
Lillian Cammack
Criminal Evidence Law
Professor Schafer
September 4, 2014
Week 2 – Assignment 2 “Beyond Reasonable Doubt Standard”
In the United States, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless guilt is proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” According to our text, “one of the most deeply rooted traditions of modern Anglo-Saxon law is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Gardner & Anderson, 2013).” Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a standard of proof that is used in criminal cases, and a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless a judge or jury is convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt based on the evidence heard, a defendant cannot be convicted of the crime.
In the book “The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial,” James Q. Whitman, who is a lawyer and a historian, explains the roots behind beyond reasonable doubt. He believes beyond reasonable doubt has origins before the birth of modern law, and can be traced back to Christian moral theology where we learn “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Whitman believes it was not originally primarily intended to protect the accused, but was instead “concerned with protecting the souls of the jurors against damnation (Whitman, 2014).” Religious reasons played a role in beyond reasonable doubt. If a person was to judge another, and there was any form of doubt, they too would be committing a sin, putting their own souls in danger. “The reasonable doubt rule developed in response to this disquieting possibility. It was originally a theological doctrine, intended to reassure jurors that they could convict the defendant without risking their own salvation (Whitman, 2014).”
This was originally meant to save the souls of jurors and judges who were going to be passing judgment on another human being by making conviction easier. It was not intended to maintain the rule of law. Beyond reasonable doubt today
Criminal Evidence Law
Professor Schafer
September 4, 2014
Week 2 – Assignment 2 “Beyond Reasonable Doubt Standard”
In the United States, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless guilt is proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” According to our text, “one of the most deeply rooted traditions of modern Anglo-Saxon law is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Gardner & Anderson, 2013).” Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a standard of proof that is used in criminal cases, and a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless a judge or jury is convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt based on the evidence heard, a defendant cannot be convicted of the crime.
In the book “The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial,” James Q. Whitman, who is a lawyer and a historian, explains the roots behind beyond reasonable doubt. He believes beyond reasonable doubt has origins before the birth of modern law, and can be traced back to Christian moral theology where we learn “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Whitman believes it was not originally primarily intended to protect the accused, but was instead “concerned with protecting the souls of the jurors against damnation (Whitman, 2014).” Religious reasons played a role in beyond reasonable doubt. If a person was to judge another, and there was any form of doubt, they too would be committing a sin, putting their own souls in danger. “The reasonable doubt rule developed in response to this disquieting possibility. It was originally a theological doctrine, intended to reassure jurors that they could convict the defendant without risking their own salvation (Whitman, 2014).”
This was originally meant to save the souls of jurors and judges who were going to be passing judgment on another human being by making conviction easier. It was not intended to maintain the rule of law. Beyond reasonable doubt today
Cited: Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2013). CRIMINAL EVIDENCE PRINCIPLES AND CASES. Belmont, CA: WADSWORTH CENGAGE Learning. Whitman, J. Q. (2014). What Are the Origins of “Reasonable Doubt”? Retrieved from HistoryNewsNetwork: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/47018