.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« Reasonable doubt is far from being purely subjective. There are very clear precedents and guidelines that judges should know and educate the jurors. »
.

I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed on that, shadowminister.

If you’d like to send me details of the source of your information, I’d be happy to check it out.

.

Foxy,

Your opinion and beliefs are yours alone. I will stick to the facts.

Banjo,

There are libraries of evidentiary law dating back to Roman times. I know a law professor whose specialty was exclusively in such law. I wouldn't know where to start. I would suggest before spouting more drivel you look it up yourself.

However, if you want to believe that for millennia, the law has been a crap shoot and years of law training lets judges make decisions on feelings then you are lost.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but, apparently, it was not necessary as you very deftly side-step the question, evoking the existence of such a plethora of evidence “dating as far back as the ancient Romans” that rendered it absolutely impossible for you to indicate even one single reference.

You declare : “I wouldn't know where to start” – adding : “I would suggest before spouting more drivel you look it up yourself ” !

Naturally, I am grateful to you for that kind suggestion, but quite frankly, if you who are so well versed in such matters “do not know where to start”, I’m afraid a poor fellow like me who is only capable of “sprouting drivel” would be even more hopelessly lost and totally incapable of finding whatever it is you would like me to find.
.

Never mind, shadowminister, in the absence of any concrete indication on your part of the source of your affirmation that “reasonable doubt is far from being purely subjective”, I am left with the idea that “reasonable doubt” is a variable that may differ not only from one individual to another but even for the same individual according to the circumstances – in other words, that “reasonable doubt” is a purely subjective notion.

In fact, one article on the net indicates that there are over 120 different definitions of “reasonable doubt”.

The Australian federal Criminal Code Act 1995 states :

« (1) A legal burden of proof on the prosecution must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt.

« (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the law creating the offence specifies a different standard of proof. »

The code does not define the term “beyond reasonable doubt” yet does define another term, that of “evidential burden” :

« evidential burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of adducing or pointing to « evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist. »
.

Here is an article on the subject that is worth reading :

http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1387&context=auilr

.

shadowminister,

You are not entitled to either your opinion or your
facts because both are wrong. Dreadfully and entirely wrong!

Foxy,

Apparently then all 7 high court judges are wrong.

Sucks to be you.

Banjo,

If you are such a simpleton that you prefer to dismiss one of the legal pillars of the justice system because you cannot google the details about reasonable doubt then you can believe whatever ridiculous notion pops into your head and you are deserving of nothing other than pity.

.

Yes, thanks Shadowminister. Don’t worry, everything will be OK.

Take it easy now.

See you on some other thread.

.