Following the controversial verdict in the State of Florida v. Casey Marie Anthony, Harvard Law School professor Alan M. Dershowitz wrote a Wall Street Journal article explaining the “reasonable doubt” standard and how it works in criminal trials.
. . . A criminal trial is neither a whodunit nor a multiple choice test. It is not even a criminal investigation to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even if it is “likely” or “probable” that a
defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither likely nor probable satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result—acquittal in such a case—may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.
For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. This daunting standard finds its roots in the biblical story of Abraham’s argument with God about the sinners of Sodom.
Abraham admonishes God for planning to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty and asks Him whether it would be right to condemn the sinners of Sodom if there were 10 or more righteous people among them. God agrees and reassures Abraham that he would spare the city if there were 10 righteous. From this compelling account, the legal standard has emerged.
That is why a criminal trial is not a search for truth. Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
A civil trial, on the other hand, seeks justice for the victim. In such a case, the victim sues the alleged perpetrator and need only prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if it is more likely than not that a defendant was the killer, he is found liable, though he cannot be found guilty on that lesser standard.
That is why it was perfectly rational, though difficult for many to understand, for a civil jury to have found O.J. Simpson liable to his alleged victim, after a criminal jury had found him not guilty of his murder. It is certainly possible that if the estate of Caylee Anthony were to sue Casey Anthony civilly, a Florida jury might find liability.
Casey Anthony was not found innocent of her daughter’s murder, as many commentators seem to believe. She was found “not guilty.” And therein lies much of the misunderstanding about the Anthony verdict.
The controversy surrounding the Anthony verdict has caused some to question whether our legal system works. However, for others, the verdict is a reminder that regardless of the nature of the crime alleged, or the public’s negative or positive opinion about the accused, the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If jurors are left with a reasonable doubt, then they must find the accused “not guilty.”
You can read Mr. Dershowitz’s full article here.
