Posted by Jason on: 07.14.2008 /
Next month I start duty as a juror. I’m not happy about this at all and not just because I’m going to be put at a severe financial cost for at least two weeks. I am being put in the position of deciding the guilt or innocence of another human being beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s that last bit that I have a problem with.
What is reasonable doubt? One definition that I’ve found is this:
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
How certain do I have to be to convict though? I mean if I were dying of some terrible disease and someone offered me a cure that had only a 1% chance of working then I’d take it. I’d take it if it had a 50% chance of curing me and a 10% chance of killing me. I like those odds. If I can’t find my keys in the morning how certain do I have to be that they aren’t on my desk to stop me looking for them there? From experience I can be 99% convinced and still look for (and find) them on the desk.
Reasonable doubt leaves me cold. I’ll always have some small doubt in my mind. Will that be enough for me to refuse to convict someone or will I allow my emotions to rule and convict them in spite of that doubt. If I hate the crime, their suit, their accent or any other impression that I’ve made will I make a decision that is wrong? Will my own biases send and innocent man or woman to jail or free a guilty one. I know how easy it is to be swayed or tricked by clever arguments and barristers are trained to present their arguments cleverly. The idea is horrible that my decision could be wrong and so important to another person.
I lack that certainty that someone with faith seems to have. I’m only 99% sure that there are no gods. Show me the evidence, I have no idea what it would be but show it to me. Show me the evidence and I’ll reconsider by position if I find it compelling enough. A trial, like a faith, would need to exhaust every avenue before I’d be fully satisfied as to right or wrong. What was the defendant’s motivation? What was his or her background? Do they have a history of crime? Should I even know that to remain objective? Does he or she have some justification in their own mind for committing the crime? Do I agree with the law? Does it matter?
In matters of faith, do the faithful doubt or are they absolutely certain? I strongly suspect that there is a degree of doubt but that this doubt is never compelling enough to reject the faith. I suspect that because my own atheism is the same. As far as I know I am right in my belief. The evidence and my interpretation of it supports my belief that there are no gods. Yet I would be dishonest and foolish not to acknowledge that the human species has barely touched on the vastness of the universe, that our knowledge is almost insignificant compared with the available knowledge. There is certainly room in infinity for gods aplenty. Yet, the fact remains, that I am unconvinced.
Where does that doubt cross the line from belief to unbelief, or vise versa. We can’t all sit on the fence or claim agnosticism. We must persevere with our chosen beliefs despite our doubts. That’s fine when we’re talking about our own lives. Right or wrong I must walk the path that I have chosen. When we decide for another what fate they must have, that is where it becomes uncomfortable for me. I don’t like being in this position. I’d much rather discuss and convince than decide. Maybe I’ll be lucky and they won’t like the look of me. ;)
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Mike O
1 07/15/08 10:13 AM | Comment Link |I’ve never been on a jury, but I’ve thought about the whole “reasonable doubt” question before.
I guess where I come down on it is, there’s a quote that says it’s better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. I think that makes for a nice soundbite, but I’m actually not quite on that page. Personally, I think it’s better for one innocent man to be found guilty than for 100 guilty to go free. We don’t live in a perfect society with perfect rules, and perfect processes simply are not possible. To me, I think we run the risk of being too careful, and actually do more harm than good. But that’s really easy for me to say when I’m not in your position - there’s nothing (or no one) at risk with my glib statement.
Nevertheless, at some point you have to not assume responsibility for everyone in the process. If you do your job right, regardless of the outcome, you can hopefully live with that.
What I hear you saying is that “beyond reasonable doubt” isn’t enough. It sounds like you’d prefer “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” And I would, too. “Reasonable” is not a very strong word, when you think about it. But the future of the accused doesn’t rest in your hands alone, but in the hands of the process and the other jurors as well.
All you can do is determine what you think the truth is, and act on that. Be true to yourself and I think you’ll be able to live with the outcome - whatever it is.
And for what it’s worth, based purely on what you’ve written here, I certainly wouldn’t mind having you on my jury. If you’re selected, they will have selected well. But at the same time, for your sake, I hope they don’t select you :)
I don’t think I ever doubt whether or not there is a God, or even that my Christian application of God is correct. Where my doubts come in is matters of what I’m supposed to do - how should it actually look? Is there a right or wrong answer to some of the more vague questions?
I think the problem with God is that he’s a spiritual being/concept/thing/whatever, and as a Christian I need to apply spiritual concepts to a physical environment. And that is rarely a clear application. If a preacher preaches something as “truth,” but I don’t agree, who’s right - me or him? Or neither?
I think it’s foolish to think I have everything figured out. IMO, I’m surely wrong about plenty of things when it comes to spirituality. I just don’t know what they are. Faith, for me, is a continuous discovery.
Comment by: Jason
2 07/15/08 11:25 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Mike.
Interesting, I’d never thought of it like that. There’s no doubt on the question of God’s existence but room for doubt in epistemological questions of God’s existence?
Comment by: Mike O
3 07/15/08 1:32 PM | Comment Link |What does that mean? My questions don’t revolve around whether or not there is a God, but rather given my assumption that there is a God, how is this life supposed to work? Is that what you meant?
Comment by: Jason
4 07/16/08 5:06 AM | Comment Link |Not exactly. You have no doubt about God but room for doubt about God’s plan. Epistemology essentially deals with the question of knowledge. “What is knowledge?”, “How is knowledge acquired?”, and “What do people know?” In terms of faith you may well have no doubts about God. You “know” that God is real. That still leaves room for doubt about what God wants from you or for you. You cannot know with any certainty what God’s Plan is and therefore cannot know your place within it. This allows you to doubt whether your actions are in accordance with the plan or not.
Epistemologically I cannot “know” very much at all. I can reason and infer from evidence but even then I cannot “know” with absolute certainty anything. If I see a rock I make assumptions that it is a solid, that it is grey and heavy and that it would hurt if I kicked it. It could be hollow or made from polystyrene and only look like a rock. Given the doubt that I could have about something as obvious as stone when where does that leave me with determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime?
I have to use reason and accept that in some instances I may be wrong. Now for a question about religion, philosophy, physics, cooking or anything that involves my opinion and decision making I’m happy to be wrong. I can be corrected and stimulated into looking at something in a new way. Wrong is good. Being wrong in determining the course of another person’s life is a different matter though. At least for me.
I suppose I shall just have to be careful and make sure I’ve deliberated properly.