The Defects of the “Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

I do not know if the thing called “proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” could ever be attained in all or in any criminal trial.

It becomes more of a legal rhetorics rather than being realistic. Lawyers and Judges must have been aware that all issues and matters within the language of ciminal laws could be reasonably doubted.

The “proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” principle is so worthless because it only applies to the rendering of judgment and not on the filing stage of a criminal case and when this principle shall be strictly applied, indubitably, all accused shall be found NOT GUILTY because there is nothing in this world that cannot be reasonably doubted. Logic  can work in many ways, it can even be a great instrument in building a concrete structure of doubts.

In a life span of a criminal case, reasonable doubt maybe established from the very beginning til the end of the trial. Reasonable doubts may intervene all through out the process in this wise:

1. Doubts on the identity of the accused

2. Doubts on the dates, time, circumstances, climates,  places and jurisdictions

3. Doubts on the instruments used, how it was used, and at what scene had it been used, etc

4. Doubts on the identity, character, personality, and profile of the witnesses

5. Doubts on the evidence collected, who collected it, when was it collected, where was it transmitted after the collection, how many days in determining process, etc.

6. Doubts on the language used in the documents, word selections, affidavits, statements, accusation sheets, and offered testimonies, etc

7. Doubts on the credibility of the law enforcers, officers, investigators, the motives of the prosecuting police officers and lawyers; fees and unethical conduct, etc

8. Doubts on the motives of the complaining parties, conduct, character, personality, and any other causes of their complaint

9. Doubts on the appreciation of the judges, jury, court, and the wisdom of those who took part in the decision of the case.

10. Doubts on many aspects, like reasons presented by each lawyer of a particular criminal case.

Evidence are not at all times admissible in court considering that there are rules of evidence restricting some proofs from being presented. Granting, that an evidence is admissible, it shall first be debated [or objected by counsel] by the  lawyers of that case. It is because there are always two tables in every tribunal – one for the defense, and one for the prosecution.

Now, tell me who could really be convicted of a crime if we will apply the principle of “conviction of the accused based on the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt”?

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• The Benefits of Doubt.
• King’s ’Reasonable Doubt’