Do you know what the court standard is for judging if someone is guilty? (1 Viewer)

[Ahsoka]

I think a lot of people in the US think that you have to be definitively proven guilty in order to be sentenced. But that’s not the case. In US criminal court, you’re supposed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Meaning that you are supposed to judge if you think a reasonable person would sentence the person based on the evidence. It’s a high standard, but guilt doesn’t not need to be definitively proven. In civil court, the standard for liability (guilt doesn’t exist) is called preponderance of evidence, which just more likely than not. If you think they’re more likely to be liable than not liable, you vote them as “guilty”.

 

[Ahsoka]

General facts tag:
@athenarose @LexieBoo @Nyaz @Dreamer_of_Songs @Yachii @Nina @pinkmelodies @velvet @FairyflossBoss @ChuuAntics @Chiara @Moguri @rayy @ADHD_Burnout

 

[dark_tranquility]

I wish we had that in australia
our punishments are soft

too many people falling through the cracks
not getting their due times

 

[Moguri]

I did not know that

 

[Selfmate]

it's the same system for a lot of western countries such as the UK and Australia

I read somewhere that the rationale is:

'tis better to let 100 guilty free than to lock up one innocent man