Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
Posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Proving Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Lynch writes that we can never be certain of a truth, but that we can only decide whether or not it is justified, because if something is justified it is likely to be true (p. 26). Our criminal justice system implements this idea in the trying of criminals, and sometimes innocent people are wrongly convicted. Is it right to risk sentencing these innocent people when we cannot reach a certain truth about whether or not someone is guilty of a crime? Is proving beyond reasonable doubt really enough here? Or is it acceptable to risk making mistakes about such weighty decisions that affect these people's entire lives? Is it better to try to protect the community by locking up people who may actually be innocent, or to be more cautious in these decisions that have such far-reaching consequences? I guess I'm wondering what gives us the right, when we can never know the absolute truth, to sentence people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is interesting that you write on this specific topic because I was thinking along the same lines as I was reading said chapters. I think this gets to the main point that in order for a civilization to live it must believe something is true if there is knowledge to justify the belief that something is a truth. While it is a scary concept to think that we will never know the truth, it is an essential mind set in order to live. If we didn't believe the earth was round, we couldn't move forward with flight paths or space flight. If we couldn't believe that someone committed murder, we would have a flawed criminal justice system with criminals roaming the streets. While living a life of uncertainty is a scary idea, it is important for us to not let this theory prevent us from living our lives.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the original post, I think the author was trying to make the point that a base level of uncertainty prevents something like the criminal justice system from implementing a "beyond all doubt" standard. This neither practical nor a good idea. Nor do I think any sort of a tradeoff exists whereby we somehow violate the rights of the individual by implementing a "beyond all REASONABLE" doubt standard. In reality our system has checks in place intended to protect the individual by putting the burden of proof on the prosecution and making sure that if the alleged perpetrator of the crime is convicted, this occurs beyond all reasonable doubt.
ReplyDelete