Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Movie: The Issues That Are Related to Criminal Justice
amounting to a lack of fundamental fairness;”(4) the moral importance of a defendant’s “good name and freedom;” and (5) the concern that “the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned.”
This solution is compatible with a reasonable doubt standard that changes based on the severity of a crime or sentencing (a cost-benefit model of reasonable doubt). This could be achieved by giving the jury information while they are constructing their reasonable doubt exemplars, so as to influence these mental models. For example, “while thinking about what constitutes a reasonable doubt, one should keep in mind that the current case carries with it the possibility of death.”Jurors would thus be free to take the penalty into consideration when constructing their reasonable doubt mental model (Jon O. Newman, 1993).
Robert C. Power, Reasonable and Other Doubts: The Problem of Jury Instruction, 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 45, 47 (1999)
Jon O. Newman, Beyond “Reasonable Doubt,” 68 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 979, 984 (1993)
Thomas Mulrine, Note and Comment, Reasonable Doubt: How in the World is it Defined?, 12 Am. U. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 195, 198 (1997)