Kinds of Truth - Alan Dershowitz

[BSB]

A clear and compelling explanation by renowned legal expert Alan Dershowitz on how there are several kinds of "truths" in a criminal trial -- and how the search for "truth" in the U.S. system of criminal justice differs greatly from other "more single-minded searches for truth," such as in a scientific or historical inquiry.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/highlights/dershowitz.html

[Plane]

This is a good find !
Thanks BsB, I suggest that everfyone who wants to discuss the Trayvon Martin shooting should read this or in some way aquaint themselves with what the law means by terms like "reasonable" and "truth".

.............. FRONTLINE editor's note: Simpson was, in fact, found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in the civil trial. Would that mean "he did it" for purposes of the civil suit, but "he didn't do it" for purposes of the criminal prosecution? Most Americans would surely believe that it only went to prove that "the law is a ass," as Mr. Bumble put it in Dickens's Oliver Twist. But such a result, were it to occur, would rather show that the law is a relatively subtle instrument capable of making refined distinctions between the standards of proof required to deprive a person of his liberty, on the one hand, and to deprive him of money, on the other. As Justice Harlan further commented in his Winship opinion:

If, for example, the standard of proof for a criminal trial were a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be a smaller risk of factual errors that result in freeing guilty persons, but a far greater risk of factual errors that result in convicting the innocent. 6

The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while the burden of proof in a civil case is "by a mere preponderance of the evidence." Simply put, this means that it takes more and better proof to convict a criminal defendant of a crime than to hold a civil defendant liable for monetary damages. How much more and how much better are not subject to precise quantification. We know what proof by a preponderance is supposed to mean: Even in a close case, the side that is more persuasive wins. In civil cases, truth is supposed to prevail, without the law's thumb on either side of the scales of justice.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Either OJ was guilty or he wasn't. The prosecution was pretty witless in the criminal case, and less so in the civil case.

However, clearly one purpose of the system was served: OJ did not kill anyone else.

And of course, OJ 's bizarre attempt to steal back his own clothes put him away just as effectively as a conviction in the criminal case would have done.

[Plane]

Either OJ was guilty or he wasn't. The prosecution was pretty witless in the criminal case, and less so in the civil case.

However, clearly one purpose of the system was served: OJ did not kill anyone else.

And of course, OJ 's bizarre attempt to steal back his own clothes put him away just as effectively as a conviction in the criminal case would have done.

None of this is the point.

The jury did think OJ was probably the killer, but not without a "reasonable" doubt.
People differ on what a reasonable doubt is , but this is the reason we want jurys involved.

I think discussion of what a reasonable doubt is, is a pertanant point in any case of circumstantial evidence.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would say that prevention of a future crime by a perp is NEVER "beside the point".

Circumstantial evidence is all that exists in many cases, and the way that it is debated, usually emotionally, is the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. There was DNA evidence in the OJ trial, and that was presented poorly by the prosecution, dishonestly rebuked by the defense, and not given adequate credence by the jury.

I did not follow every word of the trial as the jury did, but it certainly looked to me like OJ was guilty. 

[Plane]

  Do you agree with the principal that it is better to allow a guilty nine free than to lock up a guilty one?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I disagree that this is ever the choice.

This is a silly saying unrelated to reality, like "would you prefer the electric chair to being eaten by crocodiles".

I would prefer that all crime be prosecuted in the way that would best prevent recidivism. I would prefer that no innocent person ever be convicted.

By the way, there was a very good episode on Frontline last week in which it revealed that fingerprints are NOT unique, and fingerprint matchups are NOT made by brainy computers, but by "experts" who have been wrong more often than we would like to believe.

They identified a Muslim lawyer as a perp in the Madrid Metro bombing, and it turned out that his prints were very close or perhaps identical to those of the Algerian who was captured later.

No one has ever proven that fingerprints are unique. It has merely been assumed that they are.

[Plane]

  DNA evidence was impeached by a DNA pioneer reasearcher at the OJ trial, thus the jury formed a doubt that seemed reasonable to them.

   Zimmermans story ,if it seemed to a juror to have a 50% chance of being true , should not cause him to dither on the decision.

[Xavier_Onassis]

DNA evidence was impeached by a DNA pioneer reasearcher at the OJ trial, thus the jury formed a doubt that seemed reasonable to them.

=====================================
The jury for the OJ trial were dunces. The hypothesis presented was that the police deliberately mislabeled the DNA because they were all racists, based on the fact that one of the detectives, Fuhrman, was a racist.