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”?

…diminishing voices from the cave…

Human Rights Violations: A Prayer of Frustration

Barrister79
Academician, Human Rights Advocate
United Nations – Human Rights Mission  Applicant

Oooh.. god of human life, allow us to say our grief…
Before the altar of justice, executive privilege and monetary influence the innocents were slaughtered.

Oooh.. god of human rights, have mercy on us, our men became the sacrificial lambs on the caprices of the privileged and powerful.

To the gods of Olympus and to the gods of modern times, please tell us how are we going to deal with the pains and sufferings inflicted upon us?
Are we just to close our ears so we could not hear the cries and shouts of unbearable sorrows?
Are we just to close our eyes so we could not see the gestures and trembles caused by extreme pain?
Should we go back to stoicism to insulate us from all of these human rights offenses? Please tell us, ooh.. god..

Oooh.. our gods.. you colored the human civilizations by giving us inequalities; you gave us Archimedes to tell us the wonderful words “Give me a place to stand on and I will move the earth”; you gave us Seneca to tell the world that “it is the mandate of nature to subject the weak to the strong”;

Oooh.. god..give us another Prometheus, or just another Sisyphus; give us the absolute human rights as an instrument to move the earth or give us the endurance to defy the pains and sufferings caused by the whimsical suppressions of our rights.

Oooh..god send your sons to join and strengthen our cause of fighting our rights; give us the sword of Hercules to cut the oppression against writers, orators, and believers of any creed or system; give us the spear of Achilles to protect ourselves from the threat made by the one-eyed giant Polyphymus which cannot see the values of our right to existence; oohh..god.. give us the shield of Agammemnon to cover us from the great institutions who aspired to prevent the exercise of our rights.

Oooh..god..please hear our diminishing voices from the cave; save us from our fears from the hostile lions and eagles of our time; don’t allow us to disappear in eternity without a name – many were buried somewhere or detained in an unknown place on the reason alone that they write, perform, speak, and believe in something which they truly considered as their right.

Oooh..god..please cut the chain of fears and threats that enslaved our rights, please god hear our diminishing voices from the cave..

Legal Hypocrisy: Strike 2

addendum no. 2

The justices and our top prosecutors proudly solve the cases of ordinary men; but they seldom solve the murders of judges, prosecutors and lawyers. This is a specie of hypocrisy because they are giving to somebody which they could not give to themselves. The trial shows for the ordinary men were considered as the theatres of grand standing lawyers showing their best neck-ties and cuffs purposely reserved for public audience.

addendum no. 3

The use of Latin phrases in legal language creates the pretension that Latin is something which involves brilliance. The Latin words and terms are often displayed to impress the public that they possessed special knowledge and inaccessible learnings such that the client may give more incentives and the public viewers may applaud for. This is hypocrisy because the dead language became a curtain to conceal the simple knowledge and have it appeared as if it is a very-difficult-to-understand-principle.

addendum no. 4

The patent language of hypocrisy is reflected in the legal axiom which says: “It is better to free one hundred convicted criminals than to send one innocent man to jail.” Of course we know its essence and we knew that it is a figurative language which is naturally unrealistic, therefore, another hypocrisy. Besides, it is always the case whereby an innocent man is sent to jail.

addendum no. 5

The legal principle that “No one is above the law” is another words of hypocrisy. We are aware that the Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be disbarred because of the reason that they can ONLY be removed from office by IMPEACHMENT and not by disbarment. The basis for disbarment is moral turpitude, and moral turpitude is not a ground for impeachment. The legal principle that “no one is above the law” does not or cannot be applied to the justices of the supreme court because they enjoyed a lot of judicial privileges in the guise of interpretation which will blanket them from legal liabilities. The justices that declares “no one is above the law” is himself “above the law”. Besides, the law is what the justices said, it is not the law when he said it is not and it is the law when he said it is.

addendum no. 6

“Justice delayed is justice denied” is one of the ancient legal norms. They pretend to be the medium of justice; they “hate” delayed justice but they delayed justice in the name of due process of the law. Some cases may even reach  20-30 years and some may even be archived and left unresolved. HYPOCRITES OF LAWS will now replace the Bachelor of Laws.

addendum no. 7

In the law books, legal ethics and principles of legal profession, it is always emphasized that legal profession is NOT a money making enterprise. It is NOT a business but a “dignified” profession. Only a dumb and ignorant being from the other planet may be convinced by this hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is very patent. From the time a person asks a question, there is the “consultation fee”; a case is referred, there is the “professional fee”; the case is accepted, there is the “acceptance fee”; in representing in court, there is the “appearance fee”, and many more fees. Now, is this not a money making profession? What happened to the teachings which is still in the textbooks  and in the law school which says a different version? HYPOCRISY becomes the professional images of the legal practitioners.

THE TRUTH?

Just to be honest, the subject about “truth” has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This “truth” was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn’t provide the answer to the question such as the one asked “who has the truth?”.

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called “truth”. It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that it is something produced by one’s mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black – and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain – this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail – this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law (where I professionally belong), truth is something which is a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

By this virtue, I think this is the reason why Jesus Christ did not answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?”

THE LEGAL HYPOCRISY

Unavoidably, we have a lot of hypocrisy in our legal system. Hypocrisy which always deceived laymen and ordinary citizens.

We have what we call Null and Void marriage, a marriage which does not exist from the very beginning. That is the hypocrisy no.1

We have the Presumption of Innocenceof an accused until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused who is presumed innocent may be convicted if he failed to object the admission of a particular question or an evidence. This is the hypocrisy no.2

The usage of a third person, like the undersigned counsel, the affiant, etc. were indicators of departing from themselves to sound as if they were separate entities from the real person. This is hypocrisy no.3

The personification of the court, like “this Court rejects that motion” “the Law does not allow that“. In the legal construction, the law is just a matter of interpretation and concept by its enforcers; but the interpreters and enforcers of law would distance themselves from the concept to appear as if they were separate from the court or the law. This is hypocrisy no.4

Final Decisions based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt is definitely a word of the hypocrites knowing well that it is still appealable before a higher tribunal. No.5

Many more countless hypocrisies in our legal systems which we conveniently lived with.

Hypocrites did not only live in our churches but also in our courts.

Addendum no.1 — The hypocrisy number 6. The lawyers will object on the hearsay testimonies; likewise, the judges will not allow these hearsay testimonies [general rule with exceptions]. However, they happily receive all details from their client and other sources on matters regarding with complaints and statements conveyed to them by witnesses and other third parties. They lived by hearsays, profited therefrom and became rich because of hearsay BUT in court they will proudly say it is hearsay and therefore INADMISSIBLE.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!