• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. balancing probabilities

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Which makes more sense to use to conclude a criminal case? I'd say the latter.

For example, OJ Simpson got off in the criminal case because the jurors did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he did not get off in the civil case because it was based upon balancing probabilities.

Also, beyond a reasonable doubt is too subjective and can be biased.

Of course, I also favor a decentralized civil code and the inquisitorial system over the common law and adversarial system, we have, so I think the Justice System needs a serious change.
 
The question you have to ask yourself is, which is worse? A false positive or a false negative? The standard in this country (and I agree) is that we would much rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail.
 
Personally I wouldn't want to be imprisoned because some inquisitor thought it was more likely than not I committed what he concluded was a crime. I'm silly that way.

Anarchist420's ideal government is some form of tribal life overlaid with the Spanish Inquisition.

I find it hilarious that a so-called anarchist prefers a formal rigid civil code over common law-which constantly adapts to society's needs while preserving the stability of precedent-for civil law.

Oliver Wendall Holmes you are not.
 
Thump553 said:
Personally I wouldn't want to be imprisoned because some inquisitor thought it was more likely than not I committed what he concluded was a crime. I'm silly that way.

Anarchist420's ideal government is some form of tribal life overlaid with the Spanish Inquisition.

I find it hilarious that a so-called anarchist prefers a formal rigid civil code over common law-which constantly adapts to society's needs while preserving the stability of precedent-for civil law.

Oliver Wendall Holmes you are not.
Click to expand...
Do you even know what an inquisitorial system is and how they operate? It doesn't have to be like the Spanish Inquisition, especially since there would be a DECENTRALIZED civil code and prohibitions on governmental power (more prohibitions on government than there were on the Spanish Monarchy), in which the government couldn't just question you for whatever they want.

Decentralized civil code is much more libertarian than Common law, smart guy.
 
crashtestdummy said:
The question you have to ask yourself is, which is worse? A false positive or a false negative? The standard in this country (and I agree) is that we would much rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail.
Click to expand...
That's true. I hadn't really thought about that. It's better to let a guilty man go free than for an innocent man to be killed.
 
Civil code has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law. What you mean by a "DECENTRALIZED" civil code totally escapes me, though-does that mean it is a code the authorities make up as they go along? And you prefer this because you, as an "artistocrat" assume you will be in the group that wields the decision power?

And yes I'm a tad bit more familiar than you about various legal systems, to put it mildly. While some liberal democracies have a brand of an inquisitorial system (Spain, Italy and several South American countries come to mind) I think it is far less protective of the public's rights than our grand jury system-for all it's faults.

You really should take a step back and try to sort out your befuddled thoughts instead of spewing them half baked all the time.
 
Anarchist420 said:
That's true. I hadn't really thought about that. It's better to let a guilty man go free than for an innocent man to be killed.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on reaching the 16th century in judicial thinking.

It's funny how often the 'radical liberty' people are so often the biggest tyrants in power.
 
Thump553 said:
Civil code has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law. What you mean by a "DECENTRALIZED" civil code totally escapes me, though-does that mean it is a code the authorities make up as they go along? And you prefer this because you, as an "artistocrat" assume you will be in the group that wields the decision power?

And yes I'm a tad bit more familiar than you about various legal systems, to put it mildly. While some liberal democracies have a brand of an inquisitorial system (Spain, Italy and several South American countries come to mind) I think it is far less protective of the public's rights than our grand jury system-for all it's faults.

You really should take a step back and try to sort out your befuddled thoughts instead of spewing them half baked all the time.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what he means either, but the phrase reminds me of an idea I toyed with, a system of a jury with few rules - one that simply hears the facts according to appropriate evidence rules, but no laws or sentences, and simply decides case by case, 'should what happened here be a crime, and if so what's a fair punishment'.

Perhaps the biggest downside to such a system is inconsistency - 'that guy did WORSE and got less punishment!' - but there is a certain organic quality I like about it. That it reduced the overemphasis on 'consistency for its own sake' and makes people actually consider the issue of justice more than just blindly apply the rules some group of political legislatures sitting in a room made years ago to fit this situation.

Interesting idea IMO, anyway.🙂
 
Craig234 said:
I have no idea what he means either, but the phrase reminds me of an idea I toyed with, a system of a jury with few rules - one that simply hears the facts according to appropriate evidence rules, but no laws or sentences, and simply decides case by case, 'should what happened here be a crime, and if so what's a fair punishment'.

Perhaps the biggest downside to such a system is inconsistency - 'that guy did WORSE and got less punishment!' - but there is a certain organic quality I like about it. That it reduced the overemphasis on 'consistency for its own sake' and makes people actually consider the issue of justice more than just blindly apply the rules some group of political legislatures sitting in a room made years ago to fit this situation.

Interesting idea IMO, anyway.🙂
Click to expand...

Interesting indeed. However, as soon as I read the bolded part I assumed (correctly or incorrectly) that there would be no code which lays the groundwork for what crime is, so how could one get charged in the first place? You know what road that would go down. It does argue for an emphasis on "'consistency for its own sake".
 
Anarchist420 said:
For example, OJ Simpson got off in the criminal case because the jurors did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he did not get off in the civil case because it was based upon balancing probabilities.
Click to expand...

And the civil case did not have O.J. facing prison time as penalty, only a dollar figure.
 
MayorOfAmerica said:
Interesting indeed. However, as soon as I read the bolded part I assumed (correctly or incorrectly) that there would be no code which lays the groundwork for what crime is, so how could one get charged in the first place? You know what road that would go down. It does argue for an emphasis on "'consistency for its own sake".
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought of that - and there are different answers, but one could be a guideline of 'harm', and/or guidelines similar to what make crimes today.

There could be a 'grand jury' approach where prosecutors bring issues to ask for an indictment - but yes, this has both good and bad to it.

It would be the logical extreme of the 'local' approach, but would result in all kinds of variances (let's not even get into things like abortion).

But I think part of the appeal is that, indeed, some group of politicians picking numbers out of the air for punishment for a crime committed years later does seem to have an arbitrariness to it compared to a group of citizens who judge it firsthand based on the specific people and behavior. And some of the randomness could actually be a deterrent to crime - who knows what you will get if caught.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, I thought of that - and there are different answers, but one could be a guideline of 'harm', and/or guidelines similar to what make crimes today.

There could be a 'grand jury' approach where prosecutors bring issues to ask for an indictment - but yes, this has both good and bad to it.

It would be the logical extreme of the 'local' approach, but would result in all kinds of variances (let's not even get into things like abortion).

But I think part of the appeal is that, indeed, some group of politicians picking numbers out of the air for punishment for a crime committed years later does seem to have an arbitrariness to it compared to a group of citizens who judge it firsthand based on the specific people and behavior. And some of the randomness could actually be a deterrent to crime - who knows what you will get if caught.
Click to expand...

You may recall that the death penalty was for a time overturned because judges, juries and prosecutors were exercising nearly unlimited discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner, resulting in blacks accused of crimes against whites being given captial punishment in a much higher percentage of cases, particularly in the south. What you're suggesting is a regression to a system where we are governed by the passions, whims and prejudices of men rather than by the rule of law. It's kind of like the "king's justice" of the middle ages, except the "king" is now a jury so we can think of it as enlightened and democratic. I assure you it is not. It's the next closest think to vigilantism.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
Yes, I thought of that - and there are different answers, but one could be a guideline of 'harm', and/or guidelines similar to what make crimes today.

There could be a 'grand jury' approach where prosecutors bring issues to ask for an indictment - but yes, this has both good and bad to it.

It would be the logical extreme of the 'local' approach, but would result in all kinds of variances (let's not even get into things like abortion).

But I think part of the appeal is that, indeed, some group of politicians picking numbers out of the air for punishment for a crime committed years later does seem to have an arbitrariness to it compared to a group of citizens who judge it firsthand based on the specific people and behavior. And some of the randomness could actually be a deterrent to crime - who knows what you will get if caught.
Click to expand...

The advantage of universally applied laws is that, no matter how ridiculous the law, I at least know if I'm breaking it. If you have no formal law code, then I could be doing something I feel is totally innocuous, but then be arrested and imprisoned for it because a few other people thought it was abominable.
 
What makes you so certain that OJ did it? I once heard a prosecutor tell me that after looking at the evidence he thought OJ was innocent. Maybe OJ was at home high on cocaine at the time. (I haven't paid enough attention to the case to really have an opinion.)

If you get rid of the reasonable doubt standard then our jails would end up getting filled with innocent people in addition to a couple more guilty ones.
 
Craig234 said:
It's funny how often the 'radical liberty' people are so often the biggest tyrants in power.
Click to expand...
How is supporting a decentralized justice system and supporting due process tyrannical? In addition to that, I don't support the death penalty either.

Anyway, what I meant by decentralized civil code was when Justinian codified Roman Law.

The problem I have with the adversarial system is that it's a burden on the tax payer and it's also class-biased to a degree.
 
Anarchist420 said:
The problem I have with the adversarial system is that it's a burden on the tax payer and it's also class-biased to a degree.
Click to expand...

Can you suggest a criminal justice system that would NOT be a burden to the taxpayers? If you dispense with the Adversarial system and it results in an increased number of innocent people in jail, wouldn't that be a burden to the taxpayers?

Can a good argument be made that we need to spend more money on criminal defense attorneys in order to save even more money on the costs of incarcerating innocent people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top