The Instruction on Reasonable Doubt: 200 Years of Sophistry is Enough

For the past 200 years, the definition of reasonable doubt in Florida has been confusing and difficult to understand. It’s time for a change. The current definition is filled with long, complicated words that even the person speaking them may not fully understand. This leads to jurors being deceived into thinking they are being given helpful information, when in reality, the definition lacks substance. The current instruction says that a reasonable doubt is not a speculative or imaginary doubt, and that if there is any doubt, the defendant should be found not guilty. It’s time for a new, clearer definition that is easier for everyone to understand. The definition of reasonable doubt in the legal system is familiar and comfortable, but it doesn’t make sense when you really think about it. It’s like if doctors used a confusing and contradictory definition to diagnose heart attacks, and people would be in trouble if that were the case. The writer is saying that the definition of “reasonable doubt” is not clear in this paragraph. They criticize the way the definition is being presented and suggest that it is not helpful for jurors. This sentence is too long and confusing. The word “conviction” is repeated too many times and should be changed to something else. It’s important to use clear and simple language in important legal documents. The sentence is confusing and doesn’t really say anything. It’s like saying if your belief changes, then you must find the defendant not guilty. But it’s hard to understand because of all the extra words and negatives. A judge from 1876 said that using all these confusing words just makes it harder for the average person to understand. So, it’s better to keep things simple and clear. Throughout history, people have needed a way to solve their arguments. In the past, wise and powerful people helped keep the peace in the community. Eventually, people turned to God for the final say in their disputes. They believed that God controlled everything that happened on earth, and his decisions were seen in random events. Even though we may see these events as superstitions now, at the time, people were certain that God was in control. In Anglo-Saxon times, people believed that everything happened according to God’s will. This belief led to some unusual trial methods. For example, people would fight in the king’s courtyard to settle disputes, believing that God would help the innocent win. Other methods included touching a dead body to see if the accused person’s touch would make it move, and reciting oaths to prove innocence. If someone was accused and couldn’t prove their innocence, they would be executed and their soul was believed to be condemned to eternal damnation. People also relied on others in the community to tell the truth as they knew it, and eventually, witnesses were brought in to help interpret God’s will. The judges and jurors back in England were lenient in their judgments because they feared making mistakes and wanted to follow God’s will. They believed it was better for guilty people to go free than for an innocent person to be punished. This leniency was accepted because everyone in the small villages knew each other, and they didn’t want to see their neighbors executed for small offenses. The jurors were instructed to acquit if they had any doubt, and the prosecutors still managed to get convictions because they had control over the information presented in the trials. In the 18th century, changes in the legal system allowed defendants to call witnesses, making it harder for prosecutors to win cases. This was a push for fairness and equality for all people, even those accused of crimes. Philosophers like John Locke and Jean Rousseau discussed the idea of a “reasonable” man, which eventually led to the reasonable man test in negligence cases. In the American colonies, there was a suggestion to change the “any doubt” test after the Boston massacre. During the trial, the prosecutor, Robert Treat Paine, argued that if the evidence was enough to convince the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they should declare the defendants guilty. This was the start of a new way of thinking in the legal system. In 1798, Judge Chamberlin in Dublin, Ireland used the phrase “reasonable doubt” in a trial. In the US, Chief Justice Shaw further refined the definition in 1850. It’s time to improve the concept of reasonable doubt to help jurors better understand it. Students in a paralegal class were asked to come up with new phrases for reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is when the evidence doesn’t completely prove someone is guilty, and there’s still uncertainty. It’s important for jurors to consider the evidence and not just go with their gut feeling. It’s not an easy concept, and we need help from experts in different fields to really understand it. The article discusses the need for a clear definition of the standard of proof in the criminal justice system. It suggests that this would improve community confidence and addresses the history and impact of the current definition of reasonable doubt. It also provides a list of suggested readings on the topic. The author is a retired judge with extensive experience in the legal field.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-instruction-on-reasonable-doubt-200-years-of-sophistry-is-enough/