Philosophy Now Forum

Is there a way to prove what is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Catch22 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:45 pm Is there a way to prove what is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yes.

only if you believe

-Imp

Catch22 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:45 pm Is there a way to prove what is beyond a reasonable doubt?

What is beyond doubt does not require proof.

If you have an itch, you cannot possibly doubt it. It's existence is the, "proof."

Catch22 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:45 pm Is there a way to prove what is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Sure. The operative word is "reasonable". This simply means that the preponderance of evidence favours one conclusion. Legal evidence comes in several grades of credibility: recorded (which has been strongest but is cast in some doubt by recent technological advances) trace (which is becoming stronger through scientific advances in hair, fiber, DNA and print analysis) eye witness (of variable reliability and shakeability) eliminative (alibi, access,means, physical limitations) and circumstantial (motive, opportunity, history, character). Beyond a reasonable doubt means that pieces of different kind of evidence fit together into a coherent enough narrative to convince 12 normally functioning citizens of the accused person's guilt. Burden of proof, means that accuser has to present sufficient evidence; to acquit, all the jury needs to say is "We're not convinced; we have a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to specify what is reasonable specifically enough for pragmatic purposes. Legal fictions, insufficient at best, are often used to fill the gaps.

Yes. Read my posts.

Catch22 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:45 pm Is there a way to prove what is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yes and no.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of things that are beyond a reasonable doubt by virtue of the fact that they are certainties, such as an itch, a pregnancy or perhaps a broken mirror.

No, there’s a whole gray area of where reasonable lies on a continuum from doubt on the one hand to certainty on the other. In these cases everything depends on where an individual judges the preponderance of evidence to be.

Catch22 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:45 pm Is there a way to prove what is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Since a proof is usually addressed to another person the other person has to conventionally accept the way of proof and what 'reasonable vs unreasonable' means in the context of doubt.

It's a very clumsy and old fashioned expression that most people can't get their head around anyway. I'm sure someone could come up with a better one.

Let's talk about how reasonable doubt is incompatible with a jury system in which ordinary unreasonable people are required to serve.