# O.J. Simpson, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185 "2012-12-26T14:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/1 "2012-12-26T14:16:37Z")
In order for the Jury to find O.J. Simpson guilty of murder, the prosecution had to prove that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Is that a reasonable standard? Should it be higher or lower? In general, beyond a reasonable doubt requires that there’s a 95% probability that an individual is guilty of the alleged crime. I’ll give you an example from the real world. Each day we see the sun rise, then it sets, an hour later we see the moon. Then in the early morning the moon disappears and about an hour later we see the sun rising. With your own eyes the physical evidence indicates that beyond a reasonable doubt the fading of the moon causes the sun to rise. Also, the reverse is true the setting of the sun causes the moon to rise. This example shows that 95% probable sometimes just not enough. For scientists and astronomers out there they know the sun set does not cause the moon to rise. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/2 "2012-12-26T14:19:11Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > In general, beyond a reasonable doubt requires that there’s a 95% probability that an individual is guilty of the alleged crime. Where did you get this figure? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/3 "2012-12-26T14:27:12Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Is that a reasonable standard? Should it be higher or lower? The standard really couldn’t be much higher unless jurors were not allowed to convict unless they knew for a fact the defendant was guilty. In that situation defendants would never be convicted. There are lower standards that beyond a reasonable doubt. For example there’s a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, which is the standard in civil trials. That’s how O.J. was found liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman even though he was acquitted in criminal court. So “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not the only legal standard out there- but if you’re talking about situations where people can be sentenced to prison or executed, reasonable doubt seems like the way to go. I don’t think your number or example really apply here, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/4 "2012-12-26T14:28:29Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > In order for the Jury to find O.J. Simpson guilty of murder, the prosecution had to prove that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Is that a reasonable standard? Should it be higher or lower? > > In general, beyond a reasonable doubt requires that there’s a 95% probability that an individual is guilty of the alleged crime. > > **I’ll give you an example from the real world. Each day we see the sun rise, then it sets, an hour later we see the moon. Then in the early morning the moon disappears and about an hour later we see the sun rising. With your own eyes the physical evidence indicates that beyond a reasonable doubt the fading of the moon causes the sun to rise. Also, the reverse is true the setting of the sun causes the moon to rise. This example shows that 95% probable sometimes just not enough.** > > For scientists and astronomers out there they know the sun set does not cause the moon to rise. The relative times of moonrise and sunset vary through the month, and are within an hour of each other on about 4 days out of a month, which gives us about a 15% correlation, not 95%. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/5 "2012-12-26T14:29:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Where did you get this figure? Judges’ have estimated beyond reasonable doubt is approximately 95% sure. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/6 "2012-12-26T14:33:50Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > … > > In general, beyond a reasonable doubt requires that there’s a 95% probability that an individual is guilty of the alleged crime. > > … I too would like to see where you came up with that statistic. How do the juries do the math to arrive at that percentage? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/7 "2012-12-26T14:34:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Judges’ have estimated beyond reasonable doubt is approximately 95% sure. What judges? No judge in the US would attempt to quantify reasonable doubt. Not in public, anyway, unless they wanted themselves swiftly reversed. The preponderance of the evidence standard is easily quantifiable: it’s \>50%. The reasonable doubt standard is not quantifiable at all. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/8 "2012-12-26T14:45:55Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > The relative times of moonrise and sunset vary through the month, and are within an hour of each other on about 4 days out of a month, which gives us about a 15% correlation, not 95%. My, we are getting picky all I’m trying to say is it certainly looks like the setting of the sun causes the moon to rise. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/9 "2012-12-26T14:46:20Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Judges’ have estimated beyond reasonable doubt is approximately 95% sure. **pachaos** You’ve only been here for a month, but you need to understand that you just can’t toss your own guesses out as fact and hope no one will call you out. Too many knowledgeable folks out here. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/10 "2012-12-26T14:49:10Z")
I thought everyone grasped the verdict in this case was perverse? It happens sometimes; in the OJ case it turned out the jury tried another body than the accused. It serves as an example of nothing beyond itself. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/11 "2012-12-26T14:50:47Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > My, we are getting picky all I’m trying to say is it certainly looks like the setting of the sun causes the moon to rise. … but observation and examination shows that it doesn’t look that way, and only an armchair theorist would ever think it did. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/12 "2012-12-26T14:52:03Z")
I Googled reasonable doubt percentage and the first hit was [a 10-year-old Great Debates thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=149416) I don’t see any particular legal authority assigning a percentage value to the concept of reasonable doubt, and I agree with some of the posters to the other thread: the idea of assigning a particular percentage is arbitrary and not very informative anyway. > [@pchaos](#): > > My, we are getting picky all I’m trying to say is it certainly looks like the setting of the sun causes the moon to rise. This is an example you made up yourself, and I don’t think it supports your point. And I think if you keep defending it, it’s going to become a distraction from your argument. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/13 "2012-12-26T14:53:56Z")
95% is a daft suggestion. It’s for the jury to decide. There will be variation in any given body of people, there’s just no better way is all. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/14 "2012-12-26T14:54:41Z")
> [@BrokenBriton](#): > > I thought everyone grasped the verdict in this case was perverse? Not really. This is one of those times when the state _created_ reasonable doubt, instead of dispelling it. As a juror, faced with the fact that the state falsified evidence, you can’t help but wonder what else they did that you _haven’t_ been told about. I mean, everyone knows OJ did it, but that doesn’t mean the verdict was perverse. It means the prosecution was stupid. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/15 "2012-12-26T15:01:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not really. This is one of those times when the state _created_ reasonable doubt, instead of dispelling it. As a juror, faced with the fact that the state falsified evidence, you can’t help but wonder what else they did that you _haven’t_ been told about. > > I mean, everyone knows OJ did it, but that doesn’t mean the verdict was perverse. It means the prosecution was stupid. Absolute agreement here. The prosecution did not present a case which convinced the jury that their case had sufficient merit, therefore he was aquitted. Which is exactly as it should work in the US justice system. The question is never “did the accused do it” but “can the prosecution prove that the accused did it.” ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/16 "2012-12-26T15:03:55Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > The question is never “did the accused do it” but “can the prosecution prove that the accused did it.” It is if you add … ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/17 "2012-12-26T15:05:12Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Absolute agreement here. The prosecution did not present a case which convinced the jury that their case had sufficient merit, therefore he was aquitted. Which is exactly as it should work in the US justice system. > > The question is never “did the accused do it” but “can the prosecution prove that the accused did it.” But is it possible that part of the problem lies with the standard itself. Is it possible that beyond a reasonable doubt is too high of a standard? If we all thought OJ was guilty, then isn’t that evidence that the standard should be lower. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/18 "2012-12-26T15:07:11Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > I mean, everyone knows OJ did it, but that doesn’t mean the verdict was perverse. It means the prosecution was stupid. Agreed. The O.J. Simpson verdict was more a case of staggering prosecutorial incompetence than a perverse finding by the jury. Read _Outrage_ by Vincent Bugliosi for the gory details. To the OP, I think that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a fine standard for criminal trials. There will always exist _some_ element of doubt in every case. Evidence can be faked, witnesses mistaken or corrupt, confessions coerced or done to protect the truly guilty, etc, etc. Requiring absolute factual certainly would make conviction impossible, as **Marley23** pointed out, which is not in the service of justice. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/19 "2012-12-26T15:10:45Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > But is it possible that part of the problem lies with the standard itself. Is it possible that beyond a reasonable doubt is too high of a standard? If we all thought OJ was guilty, then isn’t that evidence that the standard should be lower. Hard cases make bad law. There will always be outliers, after all, but changing the entire system over one or two unjust verdicts is not a good practice. And again, the standard of evidence being too strict is not why OJ Simpson was acquitted. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/20 "2012-12-26T15:16:18Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Is it possible that beyond a reasonable doubt is too high of a standard? It’s possible, yes. Can you make any particular argument (without analogies or percentages) that that’s the case? There are other legal standards for proof, but I think the high stakes of criminal cases suggest that we should use the highest practical standard. Going with a majority of the evidence seems too lax. > [@](#): > > If we all thought OJ was guilty, then isn’t that evidence that the standard should be lower. Not in the grand scheme of things, no. It’s evidence that you can be pretty sure someone is guilty (especially if you’re not on the jury) and still not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. We want jurors to be more than pretty sure, don’t we? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185.md?page=2)