BEYOND THE NUMBERS 3.24 LEARNING ouTcoMEs 4 To 7 Accept or Fail to Reject? or Re
ID: 3223533 • Letter: B
Question
BEYOND THE NUMBERS 3.24 LEARNING ouTcoMEs 4 To 7 Accept or Fail to Reject? or Real? Section Number: Name: To be graded, all completed and submitted on the original book page. assignments must be EXHIBIT 1 Legally speaking Title: Innocent versus Not Guilty: Jury Decision Based Entirely on Evidence Author: Hugh Duvall Source: http://www.defend Many attorneys have written about the difference between innocence and non-guilt. Most quickly turn to complex legalese that would obscure our point here. This article paints a particularly clear picture of the use, however: Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty." Once a person has been charged with having committed a crime, there is no mechanism by which that individual can prove his innocence. Yes, the law provides that the person is innocent unless proven guilty, but that is a legalism. It is not, nor could it be, a factual statement. The person, in fact, did or did not commit an offense. Each time a member of the media or other citizen states that William Kennedy Smith or one of the officers accused of beating Rodney King was found "innocent," they are not only incorrect, but are also ingraining within potential jurors a misconception about their role. They enhance the risk that enough jurors on a panel will retire into a jury room believing that it is their task to determine whether there is enough evidence to find a defendant innocent. Questions 1. The role of the prosecution is to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense has no such burden of proof. How does this affect the ability of a jury to find a defendant innocent?Explanation / Answer
Answer to question# 1)
The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty. This affects the ability of the jury to prove to find the defendant innocent.
Firstly, the defendent cannot be proven innocent. the law states that until the guilt is proven the defendent is already innocent. But the actual and the practical part that falls on the jury is to test the evidence that proves beyond doubt that the defendent is guilty. If in case this is not provded somehow , in that case the defendent is simply declared "not guilty". Once the cirme is imposed on the defendent, he can never be proven innocent.
Thus when the question asks how does it affect the ability of the jury to find the defendent innocent, then the answer is pretty clear, it doesnot affect at all. Because the jury has no power to declare the defendent innocent. And nothing can change this fact. If the prosecution fails the prove the guilt , the jury can only declare the defendent "Not guilty' , but in no case it call the defendent "innocent"
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.