criminal justice

Description

The terms, beyond reasonable doubt and a preponderance of evidence, represent two different standards of proof that are used in legal context usually in criminal and civil trials. Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest level of proof required in criminal trials meaning that the evidence presented must prove to the jury of no reasonable uncertainty about the defendant’s guilt. If the jurors have any reasonable doubts in regards to the evidence or the defendant’s guilt then they are required to deliver the verdict of guilty. This standard is set in place because it is better for a guilty person to go free rather than an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. 

A preponderance of evidence is usually used in civil trials and is significantly lower than beyond reasonable doubt. It is a requirement that one party’s evidence must be more convincing than the others. If the evidence suggests that it’s more likely to be true rather than not then that party meets the burden of proof. This approach is a different way of showing justice whereas in criminal cases the stakes are a lot higher than civil cases. In criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt should definitely be applied if the evidence suggests that the defendant is overwhelmingly guilty. This principle also serves as a safety’s guard against wrongful convictions.