The Sin of Unreasonable Doubt in the Age of Unfair Trial: Comparative Perspectives

Abstract

In order to best understand judicial decisions following evidentiary findings supported by testimony, it is necessary to start with two questions: In the case of an acquittal verdict, why was the defendant acquitted? In the case of a guilty verdict, how should the defendant be punished? The first prejudice lies in this. The witness, who is aware that his or her word may affect these two outcomes, is in turn judged without bias by the assessors. The second prejudice stems from the function of punishment: to educate by punishing, or by infringing the rights of all does not conform to the canons of social reintegration of the possible convict. This contribution, therefore, aims to find the scientific degree of moral certainty that is based on the use of rational methods of research and evaluation of evidence, oriented towards the discovery of the truthfulness of the incisive facts of the case. Keywords: Civil law and common law; Epistemology and reasonableness; Evidence; Logic; Legal certainty; Fair trial