Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.doc

1001213365, 11/20/2011A short discussion about American criminal system Beyond A Reasonable DoubtWhat is beyond a reasonable doubt?Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. Generally, the prosecutor has to bear the burden of proof to persuade the jury and is obligated to make his allegation to the extent that there could be no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. The test of reasonableness is objective and subject to ones reason, common sense and prior experiences. Although different jurors have their own views with respect to reasonableness, the jurors will follow the instructions given by the judge to determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent in a particular case. Some doubts are still permitted, but only to the extent that it will not affect a reasonable jurors opinion. The validation of a criminal conviction requires the prosecutor to prove that the defendants conduct has satisfied each element in the definition of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden will never be shifted to the defendant throughout the trial. The defendant enjoys the benefit of assumption and is labeled as innocent until the prosecutor meets the burden. The judge in the trial court needs to instruct the jury about this presumption of innocence. The jury should keep a open mind and be instructed that a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice, but rather, it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. If there is no sufficient evidence brought by the prosecutor to make the conviction on the reasonable grounds, the defendant remains innocent. Why we adopt beyond a reasonable doubt?There are several kinds of standard of proof, however, beyond a reasonable doubt is the strictest. Why we need this strictest standard in our criminal system? First, criminal law is mainly intended to be the tool for the government to use its authorized power to keep the society in order and redistribute justice. The governments commitment is to acquit the innocent and punish the guilty. Without punishment and institutions designed for punishment, criminal law is of little use and has no forceful effect. Most of punishment will be implemented in the way of depriving the guilty of freedom. However, individual rights, especially, the right of freedom, have been highly valued in the Constitution and deeply rooted in the society,which can not be deprived without a rational and legitimate cause. Imposing the strictest standard of proof on the prosecutor, who represents the government, will provide the accused with more protection and avoid the abuse of governmental power. Second, in criminal proceedings, there is a marked-gap status between the two sides of the prosecution and the defense of the litigation. The prosecution has more competitive advantages even though he can not exceed the limited power determined by the Constitution, Statute and case laws. The prosecution should bear more burden in the trial. The adoption of the strictest standard beyond a reasonable doubt balances the judicial status of inequality. Third, as everyone knows, general deterrence is one of the goals of criminal law, aiming at enhancing social protection. General deterrence means that, through the criminal proceedings, punishing one criminal will influence others not to commit the same crime. Therefore, others in the community or in the society will have the chance to predict whether their conduct will give rise to a criminal conviction or not. The test used for their prediction should be objective and recognized by the great majority. The standard beyond a reasonable doubt is based on ones reason and common sense, which emphasize the importance of drawing a conclusion logically and theoretically from the factual evidence. In some extent, beyond a reasonable doubt could be regarded as the reflection of the objective standard in the community, even in the society, with respect to the question which kind of conduct should be defined as guilty. For the reasons given above, beyond a reasonable doubt, the objective standard, is a proper choice. Whether is it the best to adopt beyond a reasonable doubt?Beyond a reasonable doubt becomes a outstanding feature in American criminal system. However, we are obliged to admit the fact that the adoption of this strictest standard has caused considerable controversy. First, this standard emphasizes much more on the prosecutors persuasive skills than his capability of investigating the facts. Because of the characteristics of adversarial system, the court expects both sides to be heard, instead of the search for the truth. Even so, we should pay some attention to the truth and provide relief for the victim. Take the famous case O.J. Simpson for example. Most of the American believe in that he really killed his wife and his wifes boyfriend. To our surprise, the prosecutor manipulated the process of providing evidence sources by fabricating a bloody glove. The reasonable doubt existed and the jury delivered the verdict Simpson was not guilty. Under this circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt protected Simpson from the criminal punishment. Second, the test of reasonableness is still vague and there is no universal rule to govern how the jury should be instructed to implement this test. Every juror has his own view due to his own prior experiences and moral standards. Ages, gender, race, religion belief, occupation, social status, and relationship network always affect ones judgement of reasonableness. The defence counsel needs to convince only one juror. It is impossible to guarantee each verdict of conviction delivered by the jury is objective and rational. The black American jurors in O.J. Simpson case probably played a key role in deciding the final opinion. Third, the plea bargain in American criminal system is deba