If You Were Tasked With...

[agchristie]

...achieving a higher criminal conviction rate by reducing the threshold to secure a 'guilty' verdict,what phrase wud u replace 'beyond reasonable doubt' with?

[shoota]

'Cos I said so...'

[agchristie]

Shoots,all I will say is u have set the ball rollin' !

[shoota]

;-)

[Buenchico]

I'd refuse to take on the task as the present system is fine.

However the obvious alternative to lower the threshold of proof required would be the one used in civil courts, which is "on the balance of probabilities".

[agchristie]

"as the present system is fine."

But is it? Do jurors really understand what is asked of them with such a term that is open to wild interpretation?

The civil yardstick is tighter but cud we go further?

[barry1010]

The civil yardstick is looser, not tighter. I would hate to see the criminal threshold reduced.

[agchristie]

Barry,good spot,my error :-)

[Calibax]

It's alerady changed hasn't it?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/26/judges-told-stop-using-beyond-reasonable-doubt-confuses-juries/

[agchristie]

Calibax,that's interesting thanx.

[barry1010]

That's interesting, thank you, Calibax. Same threshold, different words.

[barry1010]

No paywall for those that want to read further https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8257467/Judges-told-stop-using-reasonable-doubt-jurors-dont-understand-means.html

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/are-you-sure-judges-in-england-told-to-abandon-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt

[douglas9401]

Isn't this why we keep lawyers?

Explaining the finer points to the great unwashed in their own lingo.

[New Judge]

//But is it? Do jurors really understand what is asked of them with such a term that is open to wild interpretation?//

It is the job of the advocates to make sure that they do. There is no point in having laws which only lawyers can understand.

The phrase "satisfied so that you are sure" has been used in courts for at least two decades. It is simply an explanation of the level of certainty they must hold. Unfortunately "beyond reasonable doubt" is often interpreted as "beyond any doubt at all" which, of course is totally different. So the explanation "...so that you are sure" can help. But the principle should not change.

[agchristie]

"satisfied so that you are sure" has been used in courts for at least two decades"

And yet I bet loads of folk didnt know that!

[barry1010]

Should we still be using juries? Certainly not for extremely complex and long trials such as the Guiness trial which lasted 112 days and involved many, many hours of debate about very complicated fraud.

[agchristie]

Concentration mustve wandered in that case Barry!

[THECORBYLOON]

https://thecritic.co.uk/no-the-burden-of-proof-has-not-been-changed/

[barry1010]

I think I'd have dozing off, ag

[agchristie]

Zzzzzzzzz ;-)

[New Judge]

//And yet I bet loads of folk didnt know that!//

Very often "official guidance" is published to formalise something which has been happening without that guidance for some time. Judges have been emphasising to juries what their responsibilities are for a very long time using plain language. "So that you are sure" is easy to understand and and not open to much misinterpretation. That's what the task of the judge is - to make it easy for juries to understand what they have to do.