Re: Death Penalty Article
[ QUOTE ]
Because juries are already expected to make decisions beyond a "reasonable doubt", an imprecise term that they are given some help with. Similarly for a new term like shadow of a doubt.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm an attorney, and I do a little criminal work from time-to-time. My recollection is that "shadow-of-a-doubt" was at one time the standard for all criminal cases, and at one point this standard was proposed for entry into the constitution, but was rejected after debate. I'm not aware of it being used in the present, although that's not conclusive, of course.
David is right, by the way: Juries are constantly required to make "precise" numerical judgments that are intractable, and this is hardly limited to criminal cases. Consider placing a dollar value on a lost limb, for example.
Our legal system accepts these imprecisions, mainly out of faith that people can assimilate the instructions and come up with a result that makes sense most of the time. And most any attorney will tell you that this is largely borne out by the facts.
A common saying: We have the absolute worst possible legal system, except for every other one that's ever been tried.
|