General Discussion

onenote

(46,149 posts)

73. What exactly do you mean?

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 12:36 PM

Jul 2013

For example, let's say that the defense and the prosecution each put forward evidence. The jury concludes that, based on this evidence, it is equally plausible that the defendant has a legitimate claim of self defense as it is that he does not. What is the result? Does the defendant go to jail even though the state hasn't been able to show that it is more likely than not that the defendant acted without justification? I think that would be an unjust result. A "tie" in a criminal case should never result in someone ending up in jail.

This is why I have offered up as a suggestion that the burden of proof remain on the prosecution to establsh that defendant did not act with legitimate justification, but lower the standard of such proof to "preponderance" so that the prosecution, on the issue of self defense, merely has to show that it is more likely than not that the defense did not have a legitimate justification under the law.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

136 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

All of the calls for a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" [View all] pipoman Jul 2013 OP

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe Zimmerman's account beyond a reasonable doubt. sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #1

Zimmerman didn't have to prove his account beyond a reasonable doubt, premium Jul 2013 #5

Its beyond a doubt that Zimmerman murdered the boy. Both sides admit it NoOneMan Jul 2013 #9

Believe it or not, the burden of proof is on the prosecution onenote Jul 2013 #11

That is, of course, bullshit cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #60

Except that killing someone is not always a crime hack89 Jul 2013 #71

bet would have been manslaughter or even 2nd degree if Z had murdered by beating to death T. Sunlei Jul 2013 #96

Of course - unless it only takes one blow it is hard to argue a thorough beating is self defense. hack89 Jul 2013 #97

That knife cuts both ways XemaSab Jul 2013 #133

Exactly the type of standard change which pipoman Jul 2013 #6

In the majority of states, the law is written so that if one claims 'self-defense' the sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #14

The D only has to prove enough facts to get it COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #17

That's the point.. low standard to claim 'self defense'. Then the P has sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #19

It's not proving a negative. It is up to the State COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #54

Don't always believe Wikipedia Morganfleeman Jul 2013 #31

That is no longer the case in America hack89 Jul 2013 #34

I assume this is a joke. cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #58

Sure, but it doesn't make Zimmerman's story any more believable. sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #61

Ohio's self defense law is the model. Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #2

+1 Just Saying Jul 2013 #8

The problem with putting the burden on the defendant by a preponderance onenote Jul 2013 #13

You're missing the point Just Saying Jul 2013 #42

You are misunderstanding how the law works onenote Jul 2013 #64

"The laws in FL and elsewhere give too much weight to a defendant's version of events." JVS Jul 2013 #22

If there's no weight on Z's version then he's guilty of murder. Just Saying Jul 2013 #47

You are wrong about Delaware. hack89 Jul 2013 #35

Someone posted about DE yesterday Just Saying Jul 2013 #38

Great thread, premium Jul 2013 #3

When a black man is dead, its easy to subjectively find fantasy as reasonable NoOneMan Jul 2013 #4

I believe in the constitution!!!!! Except when I don't. Nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #7

"scarier", "scarier", "frightening", and "nightmarish" Quantess Jul 2013 #10

Just a discussion pipoman Jul 2013 #136

Well said! Frytruk33 Jul 2013 #12

Self-defense should have a greater burden of proof Bettie Jul 2013 #15

agreed. DCBob Jul 2013 #23

In cases of "self defense" the "crime" has already been determined proven "beyond reasonable doubt". DCBob Jul 2013 #16

The burden of the State proving beyond a reasonable COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #20

yeah, and I think its wrong. DCBob Jul 2013 #21

If a woman has someone attempting Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #27

If her story is consistent and the evidence backs it up, then most likely she walks.. DCBob Jul 2013 #39

Not if you flip the burden, no. X_Digger Jul 2013 #48

I would say the victim wins.. DCBob Jul 2013 #55

"There is always evidence of some sort." -- this is a result of CSI / NCIS / Law & Order.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #56

Well in your attempted rape case described above there would have to be some evidence. DCBob Jul 2013 #62

"There would always be something" -- not true. X_Digger Jul 2013 #65

As I said I would rather just drop the burden of proof entirely.. DCBob Jul 2013 #67

That *is* a burden of proof (aka, "50%", "more likely than not", etc.) n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #68

Drop the "beyond reasonble doubt" burden of proof. DCBob Jul 2013 #69

Even for a person who honestly defends themselves? X_Digger Jul 2013 #70

No... of course not.. and I doubt anyone would think that far ahead in situation like that. DCBob Jul 2013 #76

That's how our justice system works, generally. X_Digger Jul 2013 #80

I dont question that at all in a standard criminal case. DCBob Jul 2013 #82

Most cases are murky, that's what folks seem to not realize. X_Digger Jul 2013 #95

The concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" is not murky at all in normal crimnal cases. DCBob Jul 2013 #102

As a standard for *prosecution*? All good. For *defense*? Nope. X_Digger Jul 2013 #105

I think the Ohio model in cases of self defense make the most sense. DCBob Jul 2013 #116

And I don't. (and 49 other states agree) n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #118

You forgot to mention the gun lobby also agrees with you. DCBob Jul 2013 #119

Okaaay... X_Digger Jul 2013 #121

Unfortunately alot of Democrats have been taken hostage by the gun lobby. DCBob Jul 2013 #122

That's a bit tinfoil-ish when we're talking laws anywhere from 40-120 years old. X_Digger Jul 2013 #123

You need to read more if you think the NRA hasnt affected self defense laws in this country.. DCBob Jul 2013 #124

Did you lose our train of thought? Re burden in proving self-defense? X_Digger Jul 2013 #125

I thought we were talking about how the NRA has affected self defense laws. DCBob Jul 2013 #127

Feel free to review this thread, from the OP down. X_Digger Jul 2013 #128

Not really interested in rehashing all that. DCBob Jul 2013 #131

That's a good argument against it. The other side of that is, date rape happens so often that stevenleser Jul 2013 #41

Her story doesn't have to be just plausible Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #46

I'm not advocating that standard. We're discussing 'better possible solutions' stevenleser Jul 2013 #50

In Ohio the standard for a defendant Just Saying Jul 2013 #52

I think Ohio has it right. DCBob Jul 2013 #63

You are mistaken about what the word "crime" means cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #114

No.. thats why I put it in quotes.. of course its not a crime until the case is determined.. DCBob Jul 2013 #117

Z got out of his truck and pursued... Punkingal Jul 2013 #18

I don't think the standards should be lower. I think there was no reasonable doubt in this case. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #24

The problem is that people can be persecuted with the legal system NoOneMan Jul 2013 #28

Zimmerman killed Martin. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #25

He killed him. By the law, he didn't murder him. Dreamer Tatum Jul 2013 #57

Corey should have worked up, and then through, Manslaughter. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #81

As much crap as I may take for this, it was manslaughter, not murder. nt Dreamer Tatum Jul 2013 #87

"Democrats and liberals have historically held civil libertarian views." kenny blankenship Jul 2013 #26

This entire argument is a false dichotomy NoOneMan Jul 2013 #33

Who is making such a call? WinkyDink Jul 2013 #29

A miscarraige of justice is a poor reason to place the burden of proof on the defender. rrneck Jul 2013 #30

I agree pipoman Jul 2013 #113

tHis jury chose to ignore DNA evidence. displacedtexan Jul 2013 #32

Ignored what DNA evidence? ksoze Jul 2013 #36

Link? pipoman Jul 2013 #111

Here you go. displacedtexan Jul 2013 #120

As I read that I was thinking back 25 years pipoman Jul 2013 #130

Agree in general, but am open to the idea that in an affirmative defense, you have to prove what you stevenleser Jul 2013 #37

The problem, as noted above, is that if the burden is on the defendant onenote Jul 2013 #40

I think we are on the same page. I dont think the person trying to assert an affirmative defense has stevenleser Jul 2013 #44

What if it really was self defense but there are no witnesses? hack89 Jul 2013 #43

I don't think should be the same level of 'proof' the prosecution needs to meet to prove guilt. stevenleser Jul 2013 #45

I think the present standard is adequate hack89 Jul 2013 #49

I don't think that it is. I think the system doesn't deal with affirmative defenses well and not stevenleser Jul 2013 #51

In the absence of any evidence, the doubt needs to go to the accused. hack89 Jul 2013 #53

The "absence of evidence" is evidence in of itself. DCBob Jul 2013 #72

That makes no sense hack89 Jul 2013 #74

I didnt say it proved anything.. but its "evidence" to be considered. DCBob Jul 2013 #77

But then lack of evidence means automatic conviction hack89 Jul 2013 #78

Not necessarily.. its up to the jury to decide if it suggests guilt or not. DCBob Jul 2013 #79

The lack of any of George's DNA on Tray's hands is evidence that refutes DevonRex Jul 2013 #91

Lack of DNA is nowhere near the same as having DNA ksoze Jul 2013 #98

No. The pictures at the crime scene showed nothing on Trayvon's hands. DevonRex Jul 2013 #99

That's the problem. Those pictures should have shown bags on his hands ksoze Jul 2013 #100

Good grief. They take pictures before they put the bags on. I was in LE. DevonRex Jul 2013 #108

Easier said than done.. pipoman Jul 2013 #110

Motive helps that a lot. In Zimmerman's case, he clearly had it in for these 'others' who were stevenleser Jul 2013 #112

Maybe with a supporting witness or two.. pipoman Jul 2013 #132

He was his own worst witness with what he said to the 9/11 folks IMHO... stevenleser Jul 2013 #135

Not a lower standard mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #59

^^^ Best response ^^^^ etherealtruth Jul 2013 #66

thank mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #84

What exactly do you mean? onenote Jul 2013 #73

just what I said. mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #83

If you mean the prosecutions bar should be lower ksoze Jul 2013 #85

it is what mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #86

They are having a hard time with peoples opinions. Rex Jul 2013 #88

you get it. mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #90

Yeah and also, it is always just a handful of people. Rex Jul 2013 #109

probably mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #115

I read you are very confused, so you post anything vague ksoze Jul 2013 #94

I see you are pretending pipoman Jul 2013 #106

Unless the individual is part of the jury, what a person may or may not believe is hardly "scary" LanternWaste Jul 2013 #75

Great post. Rex Jul 2013 #89

So pointing out a fallacious opinion is rude? What's that make DU then? pipoman Jul 2013 #103

It is only a handful of people, nice try. Rex Jul 2013 #107

There was a time in the not too distant past that people pipoman Jul 2013 #104

The state should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed someone gollygee Jul 2013 #92

a civil case will have a much lower burden of proof. Sunlei Jul 2013 #93

reasonable doubt should not include believing ridiculous stories Skittles Jul 2013 #101

I haven't seen any H2O Man Jul 2013 #126

Absolutely right! markpkessinger Jul 2013 #129

Evidence has proved conclusively that people are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #134