Beyond Reasonable Doubt

​I have gathered enough evidence (from personal experience and from just observing society) to conclude that doubt is never entirely eliminated. Even when substantial evidence appears to support someone’s account, the possibility of error remains.

There are countless examples of cases that were considered proven “beyond reasonable doubt” that were later overturned. 

Courts, juries, investigators, and entire communities have collectively agreed on a version of events, only to discover years later that they were all wrong. 

There is always the possibility of mistakes, assumptions, pressure, misjudgment etc. 

Jurors are supposed to stay away from news and outside information, as to remain impartial with their decisions, however a lot of the dynamics of the trial itself can cloud the view of someone in the wrong direction. 

I think of the case where the mother was convinced the suspect was guilty; she never actually admitted it, but provided enough non verbal evidence. When she gave her testimony, she led the jury to conclude that the accused was guilty, when in fact, he was completely innocent. 

There are so many factors that can influence someone’s judgment. I feel “beyond reasonable doubt” is weak, fragile. 

There are always reasons to doubt beyond reason.