Do we have the standard of reasonable doubt here?

cevy

The Wikipedia article on Reasonable Doubt mentions the UK and adversarial systems in general, but not Ireland.

athlone573

cevy wrote: »

The Wikipedia article on Reasonable Doubt mentions the UK and adversarial systems in general, but not Ireland.

The English and Irish criminal law system is basically the same (it was the same until 100 years ago) so yes

That's not to say there aren't small differences in court and police procedure.

cevy

That's what I guessed, but just looking for the specific thing about reasonable doubt

ohnonotgmail

It used to be the same as the UK as somebody else already said. I can't find anything ireland specific on the subject. It is to be noted however that as of last year the UK no longer uses "beyond reasonable doubt" as a standard. Juries are now asked by judges if they are "satisfied so that they are sure" that the defendant is guilty. Apparently juries found "beyond reasonable doubt" confusing.

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It used to be the same as the UK as somebody else already said. I can't find anything ireland specific on the subject. It is to be noted however that as of last year the UK no longer uses "beyond reasonable doubt" as a standard. Juries are now asked by judges if they are "satisfied so that they are sure" that the defendant is guilty. Apparently juries found "beyond reasonable doubt" confusing.

Satisfied so that they are sure has been used for a little while now has it not. Beyond reasonable doubt casts too many questions on a circumstantial case. As circumstantial evidence not entirely corroborated leaves nothing but doubt. Sadly for the Irish justice system a judges charge to a jury gets changed as often as me boxers. Unanimous, Majority in the blink of an eye. #AbolishtheSCC

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

Satisfied so that they are sure has been used for a little while now has it not. Beyond reasonable doubt casts too many questions on a circumstantial case. As circumstantial evidence not entirely corroborated leaves nothing but doubt. Sadly for the Irish justice system a judges charge to a jury gets changed as often as me boxers. Unanimous, Majority in the blink of an eye. #AbolishtheSCC

unanimous and majority verdicts have no bearing on the application of "beyond reasonable doubt". Each juror that votes to convict must be satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is just the number of votes required that varies.

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unanimous and majority verdicts have no bearing on the application of "beyond reasonable doubt". Each juror that votes to convict must be satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is just the number of votes required that varies.

Where did I say it did.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

Where did I say it did.

you mentioned both in the same post that gave the impression you thought they were related.

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mentioned both in the same post that gave the impression you thought they were related.

No sorry maybe should of been clearer. I was pointing our beyond reasonable doubt can be overshadowed. If a verdict is changed from a unanimous vote to a majority. If those with the doubts are the few in a majority , the entire concept of beyond reasonable doubt is irrelevant.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

No sorry maybe should of been clearer. I was pointing our beyond reasonable doubt can be overshadowed. If a verdict is changed from a unanimous vote to a majority. If those with the doubts are the few in a majority , the entire concept of beyond reasonable doubt is irrelevant.

i dont agree. a majority verdict simply requires 10 jurors to agree on guilt. To me that an overwhelming majority agrees on guilt is sufficient. If we required all verdicts to be unanimous then a single individual on a jury could frustrate an obvious verdict.

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont agree. a majority verdict simply requires 10 jurors to agree on guilt. To me that an overwhelming majority agrees on guilt is sufficient. If we required all verdicts to be unanimous then a single individual on a jury could frustrate an obvious verdict.

But if 2 jurors have reasonable doubt is there opinion not catered for? How do we know 10 jurors werent emotive in their decision.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

But if 2 jurors have reasonable doubt is there opinion not catered for? How do we know 10 jurors werent emotive in their decision.

It is impossible to cater for all opinions. Hence the need for majority verdicts. The law specifically allows for it. We accept much smaller majorities in other areas of public life and I don't see an issue with it. Mentioning it on a thread about "beyond reasonable doubt" is muddying the waters in my mind.

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is impossible to cater for all opinions. Hence the need for majority verdicts. The law specifically allows for it. We accept much smaller majorities in other areas of public life and I don't see an issue with it. Mentioning it on a thread about "beyond reasonable doubt" is muddying the waters in my mind.

Hopefully you never have to rely on the judicial system in Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

Hopefully you never have to rely on the judicial system in Ireland.

I certainly hope I would never put myself in that position. But if I was in that position I would accept the outcome. Perhaps you should too.