Guilty Verdict in Sierra Lamar Murder Case-But we don't know if she's actually dead?!?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

1)As someone said below, the standard is not "Shadow of a doubt," the standard is "Reasonable doubt."

2)On standards, consider the table below:

-------------------------------Jury Acquits--------------------Jury Convicts
Person is Innocent....................A..................... ...................B
Person is Guilty........................C................... .....................D

What we'd love is to always have the result be in either cell A (Innocent person Acquitted) or cell D (Guilty person Convicted). Unfortunately, the more stringent you make the standard, the more you raise the chance of cell C (Guilty person Acquitted) happening. The looser you make the standard, the more you raise the chance of cell B (Innocent person Convicted) happening.

We see this in 18Montclair's call for "Shadow of a Doubt" standard. By that standard the defendant would have more likely been acquitted. Given the evidence, that raises the chance the case would fall into cell C.

The table above is used in law schools, criminal justice programs, and statistics classes to show that there's an unavoidable trade-off. It is impossible to assure all cases fall only into cells A and D. So, when we set the standard, we are really deciding which we worry about more: do we worry more about mistakenly freeing a guilty person (that is, do we want to minimize cell C)? If so, we set the standard low, and convict lots more people. Or, do we worry more about mistakenly convicted an innocent person (that is, do we want to minimize cell B)? If so, we set the standard high, and convict fewer people. Unless we just acquit everyone, or convict everyone, there's likely going to be cases in cell C and/or B.

I'm glad the only possibilities in this case are cells B and (more likely) D.

Bingo.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

It is true beyond "reasonable doubt" which is the strictest standard of evidence in US Courts for criminal trials.

Her hair on rope in HIS car, his DNA on her clothes prevents there being any reasonable doubt that he was not only her captor, but also murderer.

Well there's always the possibility that he did meet her, pick her up, she went with him willingly, they consensually had sex including some kind of freaky bondage or S&M stuff which explains the rope DNA, she leaves and continues on her runaway quest AND/OR then she gets picked up and killed by some other unknown person and is consequently either alive but still "missing" and incommunicado, or dead.

But the jury is going to look at what is the odds the first thing happened, and then independently, what is the odds the second thing happened, and then what are the odds they BOTH happened in a relatively short span of time ...based on sheer unlikelihood, that BOTH things happened is much less likely than that the first thing happened.

Nobody knows for sure the scenario I outlined did NOT happen. They just know its less likely than what they convicted him of happening.

So there you have it.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

1)As someone said below, the standard is not "Shadow of a doubt," the standard is "Reasonable doubt."

2)On standards, consider the table below:

-------------------------------Jury Acquits--------------------Jury Convicts
Person is Innocent....................A..................... ...................B
Person is Guilty........................C................... .....................D

What we'd love is to always have the result be in either cell A (Innocent person Acquitted) or cell D (Guilty person Convicted). Unfortunately, the more stringent you make the standard, the more you raise the chance of cell C (Guilty person Acquitted) happening. The looser you make the standard, the more you raise the chance of cell B (Innocent person Convicted) happening.

We see this in 18Montclair's call for "Shadow of a Doubt" standard. By that standard the defendant would have more likely been acquitted. Given the evidence, that raises the chance the case would fall into cell C.

The table above is used in law schools, criminal justice programs, and statistics classes to show that there's an unavoidable trade-off. It is impossible to assure all cases fall only into cells A and D. So, when we set the standard, we are really deciding which we worry about more: do we worry more about mistakenly freeing a guilty person (that is, do we want to minimize cell C)? If so, we set the standard low, and convict lots more people. Or, do we worry more about mistakenly convicted an innocent person (that is, do we want to minimize cell B)? If so, we set the standard high, and convict fewer people. Unless we just acquit everyone, or convict everyone, there's likely going to be cases in cell C and/or B.

I'm glad the only possibilities in this case are cells B and (more likely) D.

I thought the standard also included a requirement for a "preponderance of the evidence"....of course that has been met via the DNA and circumstances.