Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nlphoto
This example is involving Robert Blake, but the question is more of a general one...
You're arrested... tried and aquitted of a crime... which means the legal system
says you did not commit that crime, because the state did not prove their case
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now the founding fathers of this country did not come up with the terms
"beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" on a
fuckin lark... you're supposed to be SURE the defendant is guilty, not just
"kinda think" they are.
|
i think you are looking at it backwards. the idea of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt is to protect the innocent. not the guilty. its not about a person being "kinda guilty" it's about making sure he is not possibly innocent.
the system is weighted towards protecting the innocent... and too much so in my opinion. in addition to that, 12 jurors must be unanimous in their agreement that the case was proven and that the defendent is guilty.