beyond a shadow of a doubt vs beyond a reasonable doubt

According to Christian law prior to the 1780s: 'the Juryman who finds any other person guilty, is liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade, Body and Soul, in this world and that to come.' It was also believed that 'In every case of doubt, where one's salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way. In English common law prior to the 'reasonable doubt' standard, passing judgment in criminal trials had severe religious repercussions for jurors. The use of 'reasonable doubt' as a standard requirement in the western justice system originated in medieval England. The precise meaning of words such as 'reasonable' and 'doubt' are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. If doubt does affect a 'reasonable person's' belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a 'reasonable doubt'. 'The shadow of a doubt' is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent many believe it an impossible standard. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a 'reasonable person's' belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.

This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no 'reasonable doubt' in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. ( law) A legal standard for deciding the outcome of a criminal charge, requiring evidence that is sufficient to eliminate any doubts that a reasonable person might entertain about whether a claim is more likely to be true than not.īeyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required in most criminal cases within an adversarial system.Legal Dictionary beyond a reasonable doubt Definition of beyond a reasonable doubt

Beyond a shadow of a doubt vs beyond a reasonable doubt