(03-24-2017 11:24 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote: (03-24-2017 11:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "American tradition," but I disagree w/ most, if not all, reasonably interpretations of that phrase that I can think of - at least as it relates to public perception.
Would you let a guy babysit your kids who was just found "not guilty" in a child rape case? I wouldn't, especially if he was probably guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree w/ me that such a hypothetical person is not a suitable babysitter, and I think that virtually every American would at least understand my decision. That scenario is an extreme example, but I think that it clearly illustrates the idea that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is appropriately used in criminal trials, but it's commonly thought to not apply to other capacities.
You can hire or not hire whoever you want as your babysitter! Of course!
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in your original post. I was responding to CrazyPaco --- I know that dude doesn't accept this verdict. Tough cookies for him. It's America, and a jury decides, not him.
While we should aim for justice in this world, I don't worry too much if we aren't perfect there. There's always the next life as regards full justice, IMO.
The likes of CrazyPaco, of course --- they want THEIR form of justice NOW. In his world, it's basically "to hell with anyone else's opinion."
I replied to this quote:
"'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard. That may not be perfect, but it's worked here in America for 240+ years.
Freeh's statement indicates he doesn't understand basic American law. Surprising given his background."
Freeh didn't say that they would be found guilty. He said:
“Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Timothy Curley were the most powerful men who ran the Pennsylvania State University. Today, they are convicted criminals. And Joe Paterno’s once iconic legacy is forever marred by his own decision to do nothing when he had the chance to make a real difference.”
“[Current PSU President] Barron and a coterie of ‘Paterno denier’ board members, alumni, cult-like groups such as Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, a former professional football player, and certain elected state political hacks, have been nothing but apologists for Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley, more concerned about bringing back a bronze statue than worrying about the multiple child victims who have forever been so grievously harmed on the PSU campus,” he wrote. “Barron can do one, last good act of service to PSU by resigning, and taking along with him board members like Anthony P. Lubrano and Albert L. Lord, who have no vision for PSU except a ‘rear-view’ one.”
To which you replied that a "reasonable doubt" standard has been the American tradition for +240 years, and you suggested that Freeh didn't know the law. I didn't know if you were reading his statements in light of the defamation suit, in which case a "preponderance of doubt" is the standard, or otherwise as his general opinion, in which case I believe anything ranging from "substantially likely" to "probably guilty" is appropriate. Either way, I don't think that beyond a reasonable doubt is the appropriate standard, and I don't think it has ever been the American tradition outside of criminal trial courtrooms (but I admittedly don't know exactly what you meant by "American tradition").