# 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:** 2
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/21 "2012-12-26T15:21:34Z")
> [@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. We have decided that it is better for some guilty people to go free because of a weak prosecution than to have more innocent people be convicted because of a weak defense. Otherwise we are no better than the old Soviet joke “The trial has been pushed back for a year, but the execution proceeded right on schedule.” ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/22 "2012-12-26T15:22:41Z")
Given how many are being released on he back of DNA evidence, some might argue _the quality of defense_ available to poor defendants needs attention before anything else. > [@](#): > > He walked out as the 300th prisoner in the US to be freed as a result of DNA testing and one of 18 exonerated from death row. With the help of science, he has been proved innocent of a crime for which the state of Louisiana spent 15 years trying to kill him. > **[Louisiana death row inmate freed after 15 years – with a little help from DNA](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/dna-testing-frees-man-death-row)** > > Damon Thibodeaux has been proved innocent of a crime for which Louisiana has spent 15 years trying to kill him. In his first interview since being freed, he talks to Ed Pilkington ---
**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, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/23 "2012-12-26T15:29:42Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > We have decided that it is better for some guilty people to go free because of a weak prosecution than to have more innocent people be convicted because of a weak defense. Otherwise we are no better than the old Soviet joke “The trial has been pushed back for a year, but the execution proceeded right on schedule.” Suppose OJ was a mass murderer and was accused of killing a 100 or so people. Would it be reasonable to relax the standard in that situation. ---
**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, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/24 "2012-12-26T15:31:51Z")
“relax” like it’s variable depending on the crime? I’m not sure you’re grasping the concept of ‘all equal before the law’. ---
**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, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/25 "2012-12-26T15:33:21Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Suppose OJ was a mass murderer and was accused of killing a 100 or so people. Would it be reasonable to relax the standard in that situation. No, but I presume the prosecution would have been able to present a stronger case in that hypothetical, as that would have given them approximately fifty times more incidents to build their case from. ETA: for the record, I believe that standards of proof should be far, far higher for crimes a person actually didn’t commit. For instance, if OJ had conspired with Martians to steal the Moon. We can play “What-If” all day to no practical conclusion. ---
**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, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/26 "2012-12-26T15:37:58Z")
Going back to the merits of the OP, there’s nothing wrong with the reasonable doubt standard. If we have a fundamental problem with the criminal justice system, it’s the lack of juror education. Eyewitness identification is among the [least reliable](http://www.nij.gov/journals/258/police-lineups.html) forms of evidence, but most lay people believe it’s the best way to identify the guilty. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/27 "2012-12-26T15:39:04Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Suppose OJ was a mass murderer and was accused of killing a 100 or so people. Would it be reasonable to relax the standard in that situation. You’re asking if it should be easier to convict someone if they are accused of more crimes? That’s sort of backward if you think about it. ---
**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, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/28 "2012-12-26T15:43:13Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Suppose OJ was a mass murderer and was accused of killing a 100 or so people. Would it be reasonable to relax the standard in that situation. So if someone is accused of being the sole cause of WWll, it would be o.k. to just declare him guilty without any evidence whatsoever? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/29 "2012-12-26T15:54:56Z")
If someone is accused of killing 100 people you can take 100 shots at convicting them if the were killed one at a time. If they killed 100 people at once, say with a bomb, then then it’s a single incident and the standard of proof should remain the same. We don’t take away people’s liberty based on anything but a very high standard of proof. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ could use some better definition, but I think it’s more common that the standard is ignored and people convicted without such proof than it being too high for a conviction. And there is no 95% standard. If anything it would be 100%. It’s just not possible to quantify evidence in that manner, so we rely on the judgement of juries. It’s better than allowing the arbitraty assignment of numerical values of proof to question of credibility and common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/30 "2012-12-26T15:56:58Z")
> [@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. I don’t think that’s picky at all. You specifically cited that as an example to correspond with a 95% certainty rate. And the answer to that is, if you paid attention at all, you’d sometimes see the moon up during the day. You’re trying to conflate correlation with causation while simultaneously misunderstanding the very nature of correlation! Again, it’s not nit picky to point this out. ---
**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, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/31 "2012-12-26T15:57:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So if someone is accused of being the sole cause of WWll, it would be o.k. to just declare him guilty without any evidence whatsoever? Maybe not. But at least you see my point. Isn’t part of the reason we put people behind bars is for the protection of the public. If someone is accused of being a mass murderer, then shouldn’t we put him in jail as soon as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/32 "2012-12-26T15:58:39Z")
> [@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. Yep…ever since the verdict I’ve thought: 1. OJ did it 2. If I was on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. The prosecution was poorly conducted and the investigation was not done professionally. I’m sure in my gut OJ killed them, but I’m also not willing to send a man to prison for the rest of his life when reasonable doubt has been created by the actions of the State. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/33 "2012-12-26T15:59:16Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > If someone is accused of being a mass murderer, then shouldn’t we put him in jail as soon as possible. If the person has already been arrested and is going to go on trial, we can assume he’s already in jail and is not a threat to murder anyone else at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/34 "2012-12-26T16:01:36Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Maybe not. But at least you see my point. Isn’t part of the reason we put people behind bars is for the protection of the public. If someone is accused of being a mass murderer, then shouldn’t we put him in jail as soon as possible. Generally every mass murderer I’ve been aware of in U.S. history has been forced to await trial outcome in jail as judges don’t grant them bail. ---
**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, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/35 "2012-12-26T16:03:30Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Maybe not. But at least you see my point. Isn’t part of the reason we put people behind bars is for the protection of the public. If someone is accused of being a mass murderer, then shouldn’t we put him in jail as soon as possible. Yes. Hey, I hear your murdered thirty people. Let’s lock you up. ---
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/36 "2012-12-26T16:05:20Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Suppose OJ was a mass murderer and was accused of killing a 100 or so people. Would it be reasonable to relax the standard in that situation. That means that the accusation itself has the power to punish. This is the sort of Star Chamber nonsense our legal system was set up to prevent. > [@pchaos](#): > > Isn’t part of the reason we put people behind bars is for the protection of the public. If someone is accused of being a mass murderer, then shouldn’t we put him in jail as soon as possible. And we do, pursuant to a fair trial. ---
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/37 "2012-12-26T16:13:36Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Maybe not. But at least you see my point. Isn’t part of the reason we put people behind bars is for the protection of the public. If someone is accused of being a mass murderer, then shouldn’t we put him in jail as soon as possible. > [@Marley23](#): > > If the person has already been arrested and is going to go on trial, we can assume he’s already in jail and is not a threat to murder anyone else at the moment. … And I wanted to add here that if a person is suspected of a crime but hasn’t been arrested, the state doesn’t have to prove he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they can arrest him. They may have to show there is probable cause to conduct a search, for example, but the standard is much lower. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/38 "2012-12-26T16:18:30Z")
When one actually calculates probabilities, one must base them on the _a priori_ probabilities of alternatives. For example, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, a low-probability event is actually high probability if its consequences are observed and all alternative causes are impossible (or extremely low probability). This is why, IMO, Simpson’s guilt was almost certain – no plausible alternative murder scenario was ever (AFAIK) proposed. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/39 "2012-12-26T16:19:37Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Maybe not. But at least you see my point. Isn’t part of the reason we put people behind bars is for the protection of the public. If someone is accused of being a mass murderer, then shouldn’t we put him in jail as soon as possible. So, say we were the only Ruritanians in the neighbourhood, and koi were disappearing from garden ponds at an alarming rate. We all know that carp is one of the basic food groups in Ruritanian cooking. Therefore I should be locked up as quickly as possible, perhaps if fish bones found in my kitchen midden, since (to you) the accusation of a crime is as good as the commission of that crime, and the more crimes a person is accused of the less we strictly we should hold the prosecution. How many crimes should a person be accused of before we can relax the standards enough to do away with a trial completely? ---
**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, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/40 "2012-12-26T16:21:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > When one actually calculates probabilities, one must base them on the _a priori_ probabilities of alternatives. For example, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, a low-probability event is actually high probability if its consequences are observed and all alternative causes are impossible (or extremely low probability). > > This is why, IMO, Simpson’s guilt was almost certain – no plausible alternative murder scenario was ever (AFAIK) proposed. Holmes was (fictionally) investigating crimes, not prosecuting them. You generally can’t hope to convict somebody on the premise that there isn’t someone else who probably did it. You have to present evidence that the accused actually did do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185.md?page=3)