There's this long running theme of lawyers using elaborate weird-ass metaphors to try to pretend the concept of "reasonable doubt" has an actual definition when it pretty clearly does nothttps://twitter.com/MaraWilson/status/1384212162969694220 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
"It's like making chocolate chip cookies" come on dude
Anyway we all know by now that sometimes "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "the cop said that's what happened and cops don't lie" And sometimes, in other cases, it means "Okay everyone saw the cop do it but how do you know they weren't all hypnotized by aliens"
(The word "reasonable" is this one load-bearing plank of the common law tradition that absolutely cannot hold the weight that's been put on it and has been held up for decades by duct tape and C-clamps and lies The long and storied history of the "reasonable man")
The way I like to think of it is linked to what I believe is an older phrase in the law, "moral certainty" I.e., "would I still feel that I made the right decision in voting to convict if I later learned that the guy was really innocent?"
I like that one better.
Not even that, at least in the UK. Juries decide if you did it it not. That's it. The judge determines the sentence.
having been juries for fairly serious cases, I feel like this is close, but not exactly right for my experience? There is no good description of reasonable doubt, because "reasonable" differs wildly from person to person. But there's a real "am I sure" element to the experience.
the first one? Hell no I wasn't sure, second one... was pretty clear :/ Why do I always get fucked up cases when called :(
I always thought it was "should the law be applied in this situation or not" myself?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.