Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Crait: what is the doubt?
Langara: Doubt about whether the defendant's actions meet the various elements of the crime?
Messier 83: don't we all have doubts?
Athos: Doubt about whether they deserve to be punished?
Aedd Gynvael: or just a general doubt of wrongdoing by the defendant more broadly?
Langara: I think it should be whether the state sufficiently proved those elements, but my sense is that juries aren't always thinking about it that way
Athos: Deserving punishment goes into jury nullification
Titan: also is 99% sure too high of a metric? are we generally 99% sure about anything?
Oberon: Say they did the action, they may say guilty. But there may not be great proof for all the elements.
Messier 83: I take reasonable doubt to mean utterly convinced
Athos: I think 99 is good a good aspiration but is certainly not applied
Aedd Gynvael: I liked 99% because we obviously aren't 100% sure, so 99% is more like "approaching certainty"
Langara: We should be close to that in order to take someone's liberty, voting rights, access to housing and employment, etc. away
New Ironworks: or doubt about whether our criminal justice system is an actual arbiter of justice / the right forum for truth to be decided.
Crait: I think its a general doubt if the defendant is guilty. You can break that into (1) doubt about the facts being sufficient, or (2) whether the facts presented are true. I don't think these days that the doubt would cover the validity of the law
Est Haemlet: I think 99ish should be the ideal, but don't really have any belief that's how it works in practice unfortunately.
Neptune: Doubt about culpability. A culpable mind deserves social condemnation.
Whirlpool: why does a culpable mind deserve social condemnation?
Langara: also strict liability crimes don't necessarily go to culpable mind
Athos: In actuality people are convicted with a much lower standard than 99
Aedd Gynvael: it sounds like Prof. Nesson doesn't really believe in any numerical figure either. He referred to belief of guilt as a "feeling" instead. This fact is worrying, since jurors' feelings about guilt are so often based off of factors not related to the defendant's actions
Rigil Kentaurus: When you say a culpable mind what do you mean? I only ask because it's not apparent to me that at trial we focus predominately on the mind
Neptune: why does it not? Isn't that social condemnation one of the two punishments in criminal law? not only is your liberty taken but you are also condemned by society?
Whirlpool: why, as in what purpose does it serve? - in your view
Rigil Kentaurus: @Aedd Gynvael but are those not their feelings?
Neptune: we don't want people in our society who intend to do wrong.
Oberon: Does giving the option to say not guilty based on the reasonable doubt, even though the individual committed said action, allow for less convictions.
Langara: The feelings part is what, to me, makes it so unreliable. I also worry about the jury's understanding of the law itself--is it sufficient to adequately apply the facts to the law?
Langara: Worth noting that incarceration in itself--the experience of it--is punishment for many people. (Third element of sorts)
Oberon: The question then would be how much doubt is there that allows the defendant to say not quilty
Messier 83: Any reasonable doubt
Langara: I agree-any reasonable doubt
Messier 83: You shouldn't leave the juror room wondering if you made the right choice if you convicted
Messier 83: Not saying that means you're always going to get it right
Langara: reasonable doubt protects the defendant (in theory) but also aims to make sure we do punish the correct person--if it's not the defendant, we need to find who it was kind of mentality
Lantea: Since reasonable doubt may be resolved by determining whether there exists an alternative explanation to the facts seems plausible, I think there is room for emotion/feeling to be factored in.
Neptune: In the case where the 17-yo kid carried a gun without registration: we agreed that he had violated the statute but we also agreed that he was not guilty? Why was he not guilty? we had doubts that he had transgressed against societal standards or that he had hurt his community.
Athos: That case speaks to the importance of mens rea as well
Athos: and the danger of strict liability
New Ironworks: I find an obsession with removing feelings far more unreliable and unrealistic - - because "pure concepts" of rationality/logic/neutrality/objectivity are fictions that have been used to propel mass incarceration of Black/Latinx people. Reckoning with inevitable feelings of all who partake in the process is more honest and realistic
Neptune: that is why I mentioned culpability. that kid did not have criminal intent.
Vega: Thinking about reasonable doubt as "an abiding conviction in the truth of the charge" as opposed to "99/100" would seem to require the jury to confront, more directly, the moral/ethical implications of depriving an individual of liberty
Luyten 726-8A: I am sympathetic to the idea that the degree of certainty required for reasonable doubt should be able to fluctuate in response to the circumstances and the punishment. Although this allows for unpredictability, as a juror, I would have a higher standard for crimes that are inherently easier to prove and carry higher punishments.
Langara: So the jury could, in theory, serve a more holistic purpose?
Neptune: Langara, i think that is what Professor Nesson is trying to tell us
Aedd Gynvael: love that @Moon mentioned the gun permit case. It helps show that there's more to the jury's calculus than showing that someone checked off the boxes of a statute beyond a reasonable doubt. it gets at the whole "feeling" aspect of jury decisions that Prof. Nesson has been pushing on. Unfortunately, these "feelings" also cut the other way and disproportionately harm Black/Latinx defendants, as @Callisto mentioned above
Langara: Black/Latinx people lose out (in most cases) whether it's a question of jury as holistic or jury as objective
Langara: Which, to me, gets to the "of your peers" idea
Luyten 726-8A: So what, then, do you reccomend?
Lantea: To me, there have been times that we have underestimated the intelligence of the jury.
Messier 83: first day of fall. happy fall everybody
Earth: I think the guilty/not guilty question is too simplistic because our current system is so unfair that most (80-90% in some jurisdictions) defendants take a plea deal