"Jury in need of Dismisall"

Michael Fisher (mwfisher@CTS.COM)
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:38:08 -0800

Here's a copy of a feedback I submitted to the site:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To provide context, here is the material I'm commenting on:

On a related note, McDowell makes the extravagant claim,
"If I had exercised `blind faith,' I would have rejected
Jesus Christ and turned my back on all the evidence." This
must be an example of "taking the offense" which McDowell
described earlier. Not only is he claiming that he did not
exercise "blind faith," but he also seems to be suggesting
that anyone else who rejects Christianity is exercising
"blind faith." However, even if McDowell succeeds in producing
evidence in defense of Christianity (a soft apologetic),
he would still need to defend the claim that Christianity is
the only rational explanation possible for such evidence (a
hard apologetic).

Of course, not everyone has such a stringent standard of proof
as implied; even fewer people would actually live in such a
way. Our legal system would practically grind to a halt if a
"hard apologetic" were demanded to convict every criminal.

* *

Let me quote to you the approximate words of a California
jury instruction in a criminal trial, recalling that the
standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that all
12 jurors must agree:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if upon examining the
evidence you find that there are two possible interpretations
of that evidence, one leading to the defendants guilt, and one
to his innocence, then however unlikely the interpretation
leading to his innocence, you must find the defendant "not
guilty".

That is from memory, but its real close.

In removing someone's liberty or even his life, the
courts demand a very "hard" interpretation of the evidence.
That so many are sent to jail anyway (and "liberal" California
has a greater proportion of its population in prison than most
states) is pretty convincing rebuttal that a "hard" standard
of evidence cannot reasonably be met. It happens hundreds of
times a day all across the country.

Ciao.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I bet his actual grasp of history and phiosophy is as good
(i.e., no better) than his grasp of law.

-- 
	Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student	


	http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994


	*		*		*     
	
     He that would make his own liberty secure, 
     must guard even his enemy from oppression; 
     for if he violates this duty, 
     he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
		
                                             Thomas Paine