What does the law say when an innocent person is executed?

Question

Consider: Which is the standard highest of proof in a crime between: "beyond a reasonable doubt" and “beyond all possible doubt” ?

Answer 1

The highest standard of proof is "beyond all possible doubt." No conviction should occur unless the jury has 100% certainty the accused committed the crime. It's a higher standard than the "reasonable doubt" standard. Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes had it right when he said (paraphasing): "it is better for a 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted." Innocent people have been convicted because of prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, faulty eyewitness testimony and a myriad of other reasons. It doesn't really matter if the conviction was deliberate or accidential, an innocent person still suffered. You asked "What does the law say...?" and I'm not positive I know what you're asking in that portion. The law cannot return someone's life when the person has been executed or imprisoned. The only remedy is monetary compensation and no matter what a person is awarded it is woefully inadequate compared to what they lost. I hope this would be less likely to occur with the use of DNA evidence, but even now the prosecutors hide DNA evidence and engage in unfair witness intimation and tactics. The Duke rape scandal is the most current example. That process was so tainted by prosecutorial misconduct that good science didn't matter. I question what would have happened to the accused Duke students if they did not have money and, hence, good attorneys. What if they had to rely on the limited resources of a public defenders' office? To me, "all possible doubt" means zero chance of error. That's not possible when humans run a system with anything less than complete honesty---and they do not.

Answer 2

It says: oops!
Seriously.
Beyond all possible doubt, is an impossible standard. If your fingerprints are on the murder weapon, ten people saw you commit the murder, your DNA is all over the victim and crime scene; your guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". But not beyond all possible doubt, since there is always a mircoscopic chance that the ten witnesses all suffered from the same vision problem at the same time, and that your fingerprints and DNA actually belong to some unknown twin.

I'm impressed with how many "oops" there are!!

Answer 3

The reason why you put in reasonable is because all a defense lawyer would have to ask is it possible black ops people came in the night with all sorts of tech. equipment we know nothing about frame my client.

It is possible but is it reasonable.

Answer 4

oops

Answer 5

Oops....

Answer 6

Sorry,.......... NEXT!

Answer 7

ooops! oh well...