Beyond Reasonable Doubt

I wrote this while I was on the jury for a criminal case. I can't talk about it until it's over. I wasn't supposed to talk about the details of the case while it was going on and thought it better not to post this then, even though it contains none of the facts for the case.

I picked up a couple of ideas from my case that seem interesting.

The first is the idea of making an unbiased or fair decision. In court they want us jurors to be not unduly biased. They recognize that we all have bias, but they want our bias to not hinder us from making a fair decision in our case. The judge has stressed several times that we need to treat every witness as starting at zero. We let the words they say and any related evidence determine how much we believe them. We don't decide how much to believe by how they look or what their lawyer does or because they are a police officer or for any other non-relevant reason.

Our job as jurors is to fairly judge the facts of the case. There is no appeal of a jury's decision. We are the only ones who ever get to decide the facts. Cases can be appealed on points of law, but the jury's fact finding cannot be appealed. In other words, what we jurors decide is final. We need to be careful and do our job well.

In a process called "voir dire," the court asks us questions to get some idea if we will have a problem deciding fairly. They ask if we know anyone in the trail or have any life experience that might prejudice us in the case. They directly ask if we can make an unbiased decision.

As I've said many times that I think one problem many of us have is that we hold opinions so closely we only argue to prove our position. How much better to listen like a juror and decide the facts. As I've learned already in my trial, this is not easy. It is easier to hold to preconceived ideas. As a juror I feel a tremendous duty to listen carefully and not be biased. Shouldn't we all do the same for important issues in our lives?

The case I'm on is a criminal case. In the U. S. people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because of this, the defendant is currently not guilty. If I had to vote before any evidence was presented, I'd be obligated to vote "not guilty." It reminds me that in philosophy, disproving one side does not prove the other side. And, by the way, in politics proving your opponent is a scumbag does not prove you are a good candidate.

Another concept is proving "beyond a reasonable doubt." In any criminal case in the U. S., guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a pretty high standard. It is not enough to have the weight, or preponderance, of the evidence in favor of guilt. There must be no reasonable doubt. It is possible for me to think a person committed the crime, but still have enough doubt that I'd vote not guilty. On the other hand the standard is not "beyond all doubt." I can have some doubt and still vote "guilty."

Very little in life, perhaps nothing, is beyond all doubt. Yet that is often the standard opponents of a position claim the position must adhere to. It's easy to stick our heads in the sand and just believe what we think we know. It's also easy to just say we can't know anything because there are doubts about everything. Much harder, but I believe much better, is to listen to evidence and arguments and make the best decisions we can.

Since I originally wrote this I noticed that Robin had this quote from Larry Niven which sums up nicely what I'm trying to say:

To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.