tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17975898.post114861379395518099..comments2023-04-12T07:01:06.827-07:00Comments on The Western Front w/ P-Soljah: When I think of home...elderdxchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18071222328972267419noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17975898.post-1151446895982285042006-06-27T15:21:00.000-07:002006-06-27T15:21:00.000-07:00I was looking back through old posts and comments ...I was looking back through old posts and comments on my blog (The Wretched of the Earth) and saw a comment you posted on my explanation of the burden of proof in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt). Basically, you said that, as I put it, beyond a reasonable doubt was such a high burden that almost no one could ever be found guilty. You also said that, as a defense attorney, all I cared about was winning and not justice. I'd like to respond (albeit late) and invite you to keep reading and commenting on my blog. Sorry it's taken me so long to see your comment.<BR/><BR/>First of all, the burden of proof in criminal cases is very high. It's the highest burden in our system for a reason: because people's life and liberty is on the line. Our founding fathers believed those stakes were so high that we should require the State to go above and beyond to prove their case. Just because the burden is high, however, does not mean it's impossible or even too high. In fact, people get rightly found guilty everyday in the courthouse. Remember, it's beyond REASONABLE doubt, not all doubt. We're not talking about any what-if. Essentially, the State has to prove their case and there should not be any reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. If there is, the tie goes to the defendant. That's because in our society we value our freedom at the highest level.<BR/><BR/>Second, I do not value winning over the truth. Perhaps some defense attorneys do, but most do not. We are a check on the incredible power of the State to accuse and incarcerate people. Our role is to require the State to prove their case; without us, the State could put someone in jail simply because they say they're guilty (not b/c they proved it). <BR/><BR/>In fact, defense attorneys usually lose. It should be that way. The State gets to decide which cases to bring and which to dismiss. If we won most of the time it would mean the State was prosecuting silly cases. <BR/><BR/>Watch out on those sweeping generalizations; they're rarely true. Thanks again for reading and feel free to come back and disagree with me. I love debate.Mike Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111524970633256292noreply@blogger.com