This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 1. In your own words, define the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Is this a suitable standard for conviction of a crime? In not, what do you think the standard should be? If so, why? The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, this is a suitable standard for conviction of a crime. When it comes to a justice system, we can only rely on human beings to establish laws of a justice system. We must rely on common sense. We must take into consideration what a reasonable prudent person would know. I’m a parent, and you know when you’re kids are lying. Obviously, we aren’t that close to criminals. However, you know when something just doesn’t sit right. When the prosecution is presenting their case, and they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed…..it their case, and they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed…....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/23/2011 for the course CJ 313 taught by Professor Smith during the Spring '11 term at Park.
- Spring '11