I have, for many years, written that for major crimes, juries should be allowed to come up with "probably guilty" verdicts in cases where they judged the chances someone was guilty as higher than 50% but less than the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt". Some other countries already have something similar.

The argument against that idea is that it puts a stigma on people, some of whom are innocent. Which is why I recommended it only for those accused of crimes that are quite violent or dangerous. (This verdict might come with a loss of some civil rights where they could be monitored in ways most can't.) But I realize now that there is a second category where such a verdict could be a good idea. Namely when someone accuses another of sexual assault. Because while it is true even for these crimes, that the error of convicting an innocent person is much worse than acquitting a guilty person, those acquittals sort of imply that the accuser was lying even when they probably aren't. There is no way to totally avoid this conundrum. But allowing for "probably guilty" verdicts in cases where it is appropriate (NOT Cosby) would ameliorate the problem somewhat.

I’m filing this idea under “probably dumb”.

Do people think OJs wife was lying about being murdered..?

David,

What you are talking about is a preponderance of the evidence standard, which in used in civil cases, where a fact-finder only has to be 51% confident in their decisions.

It should be even obvious to you that before we deprive someone of their liberty we want to be much more confident in our beliefs than 51%.

Of course, the huge blind spot in your analysis is thinking that when discussing the most awful crimes society should be willing to convict with skimpier evidence than when dealing with simple assaults. This means that those who are falsely convicted would also be more likely to face the worse punishments.

Well, at least you've covered every conceivable counter-argument.

There is a third verdict available to a Scottish jury 'NOT PROVEN '.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Would OJ been found 'NOT PROVEN '.

No.

Worse crimes should have a stricter standard of proof, not a looser one.

Guilty people will go free. I'm okay with that.

Also, acquittals don't "imply the accuser was lying". They don't even imply the defendant isn't guilty. They don't even imply that defendant probably isn't guilty.

People who don't get that can assume the accuser was lying or whatever, but who cares?

I'd love to watch a reality show about David's actual thoughts before he posts one of these awful OPs where he tries to convince us he is smart. It must be amazing.

Literally 90% of the worst OPs on the forum for the last 5-10 years are David's. It's incredible.

Yea this. People are morons. Can you imagine wondering if a jury is thinking "Well...maybe? he did this?" and finding you guilty. WTF. 99% of the general population doesn't even understand what 20% probability of rain means. But sure, let them figure out what probably guilty means.

Pretty much this. If, similar to OJ, someone is acquitted on criminal charges but found guilty in civil court, isn't that already implicitly saying that they're probably guilty?

Hmm... So you want to reduce the standard for a conviction because dangerous people might otherwise be walking free?

Have you bothered to consider that the currenrt crime just might not be the first time said person has stood before a judge?

The myopia is strong with this one.

smh...

DS would have listed some countries if he actually knew of any, right?

What is the square root of nobody gives two ****s?

David, I think you're giving rube jurors too much credit. All they can play is checkers, not chess. All they need to know to determine if someone is guilty or not is do they look like an undesirable member to have in our puritanical community?

All you need to do is take a look at some of the history of high profile criminal cases in this country to recognize that this idea is stupid. 12 religious morons can send kids to the electric chair for wearing black and listening to heavy metal, because Jesus. I don't think juries like these have the capability to determine the mathematical chances are that someone committed a crime.

On top of this, there is so much corruption and injustice in our criminal justice system. If you're black and poor, you're guilty, and if you're a white cop you can lynch the dangerous blacks. Making our already terrible criminal justice system non-binary will make it even more complicated and more susceptible to abuse.

In any case, I'll consider this thread as another reason I probably shouldn't read your threads.

There is an urgent need to address the problems with bringing rape cases. Could be a really good idea to have a probably guuilty verdict (maybe a fair bit more than 51% but still less of a burden than beyond reasonable doubt). It could well encourage more victims to prosecute and act as a significant deterant to those who currently expect to get away with it.

Maybe it wouldn't work. Not sure why it wouldn't work well but either way it's well worth serious consideration.

Many cases carry an option for lesser crimes convictions. So to some degree, you could say we have a "probably guilty" type of verdict already built into the system. In the case of sexual battery, depending on the jurisdiction, one could be convicted of lewd behavior or simple assault, rather than the main charge. So its not an all or nothing situation in many cases of serious crimes.

How do you control for malicious prosecution?

We already have a huge problem in the US civil court system where everyone sues for everything. It's so bad that virtually all companies will try to force claimants into arbatration instead of using the courts?

To David (and any other who thinks this might be a good idea)...

Why not just change the system to one of a presumption of guilt, instead of a presumption of innocence?

If the burden of proof is reduced, prosecutors will no longer have an incentive to negotiate a plea deal. This alone would massively increase the costs associated with the criminal court system.

Further, it would financially cripple most defendants who would be forced to defend instead of plea bargain. This is clearly counter productive to the goal of seeking justice.

That is one eloquent ferret.

No there isn't.

Man literally no one commits crimes expecting to get caught, put on trial, and then acquitted.

This is a terrible idea.

I've long considered some kind of reverse trial by combat.

I reckon if the defendant can't win in a fight then he's innocent. That way even the guilty people who go free would have to take a beating.

Edit: Obviously the accuser would be able to name a champion of their choosing, or it's just silly

I dont see why that side of it would change. Malicious prosecution for rape is a tiny problem compared to the problems faced by rape victims and it should be treated the same under either system.

I'm from the uk so we dont have the plea bargaining system. I'm not a fan of plea bargaining (to put it mildly). Not sure it makes a big difference to the arguments here.

Not at all convinced that's true but it's largely besides the point here as many do expect to get away with rape and will be deterred by seeing more people not getting away with it.

Lowering the burden of proof wouldn't fix that and is a terrible idea.