I live in a small iowa community. Everybody knows everybody and not a lot happens here. Almost a year ago this guy "allegedly" shot his mom, dad, and three teenage sisters. I can see reasonable doubt in this case and would hate to see him walk free. He is a known meth user and was probably tweaked when he did this.
do you think its fair that he could even possibly ge away with this?
http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln3_0508.html
2007-05-08 07:53:34 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
um, i have a life. but this was on the front page of our newspaper today. its kind of hard to ignore it when that is whats going on in my life. I knew the family, they were friends of my family. its just very sad.
2007-05-08 08:01:01 · update #1
Not a jury member. Cannot say.
2007-05-08 07:57:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think of it this way. In America, we believe that you are "innocent until proven guilty". We believe that the prosecution has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the alleged committed the crime.
Note that this is a "reasonable" doubt, not "any" doubt. The idea is that the prosecution must provide enough evidence that most people would believe that the accused is guilty. They don't have to prove that it is impossible that the accused didn't commit the crime.
There are many times when a very slim possible chain of events could explain a tragedy like this one, like "an identical twin, who was born, (but unknowingly was kidnapped from the hospital), drugged the accused, and murdered his family, and escaped. Possible, but very unlikely, and definitely not to be considered in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" category, because it's not reasonable.
Be glad we have this system. In other countries, you are guilty until proven innocent. All the government has to do is arrest you. In these systems, you have to do the proving, and if you fail, you suffer the consequences. Bad memory? Not sure where you were, or who you were with? Gee, that's too bad. I guess it's jail-time for you, whether you were guilty or not.
Be careful of being too quick to judge. We are finding that even with the protections our system has, that innocent men go to jail. That's why it is so important to work with evidence, like DNA, rather than feelings. And if he is guilty, it's still important that it be proven with evidence, for, as Thomas Jefferson once said:
"It [is] more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape."
2007-05-08 08:21:12 · answer #2 · answered by LT Dan 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
RESONABLE DOUBT keeps the innocent person out of jail, if there is a doubt that he did it, then it is possible that he didn't do it. I think that evidence will leave no room for doubt, but if there are witnesses that place him in Quincy IL at the time of the murders, the prosecution will have to discredit the witnesses to rid the case of any doubt.
I bring to mind the Scott Peterson trial and all the circumstantial evidence that got him convicted even with reasonable doubt, I don't think this case will be any differrent. The guy will be convicted even if there is any doubt that he did it. Thumbs up for American Justice, eh?
2007-05-09 19:36:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
After reading your article, the evidence is clear and convincing that he did it. There are the victims' recorded voices on the 911 call identifying the killer as Shawn, and there was abundant financial motive (inheritance). No jury in the world would let this guy walk on the testimony of his roommate, his only alibi. I think you can rest pretty easy on this one.
Is the reasonable doubt standard fair? Yes, when you consider how many innocent people could be convicted for a crime they didn't do without that standard or proof.
2007-05-08 08:06:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not an authority on US law, but spent 35 years practising UK law. The test here is even higher than reasonable doubt. It is BEYOND reasonable doubt.
If you are convicting someone of murder, then the jury must be REALLY sure.
There are many, many defences to murder. If he was
acting under the influence of (meths) he could end up
convicted of manslaughter.
But - in your favour - he could also be Sectioned under
the Mental Health Act if he pleads that the drink had
such an effect on him as to commit murder.
Hopefully, you will get a legal opinion from your side of
the pond.
2007-05-08 08:03:28 · answer #5 · answered by Bunts 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i do not disagree with the no longer in charge verdict. The prosecution did not type a case previous a sensible doubt. The protection grow to be waiting to create many "possiblities" that saved the jury doubting. it truly is how our legal procedure works. I despite the indisputable fact that do not trust that Zimmerman is chance free nor grow to be he truthful. He did not take the stand because he did not desire to lie less than oath. i do not imagine he got down to homicide Martin, yet i imagine he had to step up and be the "demanding guy". at the same time as he stumbled on out that he does no longer be able to intimidate or bodily manage Martin, he presented out his "equalizer" and shot. because that there have been no witnesses, there's no human being who can say that it got here about any way except how Zimmerman describes. i'm getting mad on the Zimmerman defenders who say Martin grow to be a "thug" (it truly is racist code for youthful black guy now a days, you do not see them reffering to white criminals as thugs) and that he grow to be casing homes to interrupt into. Or that he assaulted Zimmerman. there's no information that those issues got here about. the in basic terms information we've is that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
2016-10-18 06:29:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I hate to see a (possible) murderer set free, I am glad we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by actual evidence and sworn testimony. Many countries have systems that seem to be the opposite, and people, most of whom are innocent of anything, are not truly free. Let the justice system do its job and don't jump to conclusions.
2007-05-08 08:03:17 · answer #7 · answered by Chris H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow - too much pain in this family. I think if anything he should be sent to rehab and kept there. They should also ask him to take a polygraph - if he has nothing to hide this will somewhat ease the minds of the rest of the family. I do see the reasonable doubt also. There might have been an accomplice.
2007-05-08 08:03:49 · answer #8 · answered by Feline05 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the jury believes that there is reasonable doubt, then it is fair. If one man is deprived of his rights because everyone "knows" that he did something, then it is a signal of the downfall of the country. Okay, not so dramatic, but somewhat true. To protect the innocent, we sometimes have to protect the guilty, or we will slowly chip away at our own rights.
2007-05-08 08:00:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No reasonable doubt is in place to protect innocent people from getting convicted. Yes it's possible he killed his family, however it's possible that he was in Quinch. But it all depends on two things, the evidence and the jury.
2007-05-08 07:58:19 · answer #10 · answered by jay k 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is hard to answer your question because I don't have all the facts. This is reasonable doubt, but yet it seem as if a lot of the laws are in place to protect the rights of criminals and the victims can just go to ----
2007-05-08 08:23:25 · answer #11 · answered by redmarc316 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋