I don’t want to put words in Elvis’ mouth and will apologize if I’m wrong, but I think what he’s saying is that in his opinion if there is the “possible doubt” then there is “reasonable doubt”.
This probably forms the basis for another thread, but here are my citations.
2nd trimester ends at 27 weeks: Fetal development: The 2nd trimester - Mayo Clinic
Brain waves “…with regular patterns typical of adult human brains,” occur during about the 30th week of pregnancy. That’s from a book by Carl Sagen (Billions and Billions). Larger quote: [INDENT][INDENT]By placing harmless electrodes on a subject’s head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy–near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this–however alive and active they may be–lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
I did not recall the qualification, “Typical of adult human brains”, when I made the above claim: correction noted and appreciated.
Cite: Science and abortion
Nope. Doubt can be unreasonable but still possible.
Ok, what would be your definition of “unreasonable but still possible”?
For example, Steophan has insisted that the jury in the case of Michael Dunn, the man who killed Jordan Davis made the wrong decision and that Dunn was innocent because it’s possible that the witnesses who saw the shooting could have lied and then hidden the shotgun that Dunn claims Davis threatened him with.
Do you think Steophan is right and that the jury should have acquitted Dunn?
OK, since you’re genuinely having trouble here. It’s possible that aliens did it all and then hypnotized us into blaming one of our own. It’s not reasonable, though.
It is possible that John Wayne Gacy did not murder any of those boys but, instead, is the victim of an incredibly elaborate frame job in which a man who looked just like him committed the murders and, with the cooperation of police, planted the bodies on Gacy’s property, as the real killer had the goods on the local authorities and so was able to blackmail them into using Gacy as a patsy.
Obviously this is not a reasonable basis for doubt, but it is technically possible.
So why do we need juries? 
To determine reasonability.
So then, to take you at your word, you would refuse to convict anyone of any crime since it’s always possible that aliens did it and hypnotized us into believing it, correct?
We kill people because it is reasonable?
Jesus, Mary and Joe Cocker.
:rolleyes:
Where do you get this crap? The standard for guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “beyond all possible doubt”. What is so difficult here?
We convict people when we find that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they’re guilty of the crimes with which they are charged. We sometimes, still, kill them because those of us selected to be jurors, after screening out those who, like us, oppose killing anyone, find that they and their crimes merit it.
Barbaric but simple.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “overwhelming”, but there clearly is a consensus in favor of the death penalty.
Regards,
Shodan
Majority, yes. Not consensus.
Still waiting to see you come up with an explanation of why we should acquit based on unreasonable doubt.
Regards,
Shodan
Right after your explanation of why you think that’s what I said. :rolleyes:
I am not concerned with the morality, but for the possibility, however unreasonable, of error.
That’s one of the reasons I came around to opposing it outright - the Illinois study some years back that showed how erratic, unreliable, racially-skewed, and random it was. I wish we’d seen more effort towards improving the, well *accuracy *for lack of a better word of the judicial system than we’ve had.
My other reason is that it debases *us *to do it. If we choose to kill, then we choose to be killers. I used to be able to rationalize that away, but I no longer try.
I am also offended by the arrogance of the legal profession with it’s definitions such as “reasonable doubt”. One must have definitions, but that one seems to be to be worded so as to switch the blame from any of that profession making a mistake. It is the fault of the jury, not of prosecutors and Judges if an innocent person is found to be guilty.
Do you believe that someone should be convicted and punished (in a non-capital case) where there is no reasonable doubt as to their guilt? If so, good - then this nonsense about “possible” doubt is just a strawman.
Regards,
Shodan