Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent. Is that what you consider a system that works well? Would you get on a plane that crashed 1 out of 25 times? Would you consider that plane to be working well?
A huge percentage of those wrongful convictions happen because there wasn't any evidence, but the police and prosecutors were "reasonable". The judge was "reasonable" and the juries were "reasonable" too. Despite the complete absence of facts to support their "reasonable" feeling, they managed to convict an astonishing number of innocent people.
If one jury is full of suspicious people who always see the worst in others and another jury is full of people who always assume the best, the idea of reasonableness says that both should reach the exact same conclusion. You of course recognize that both will convict when there is clear evidence of guilt, but only one will convict when "reasonableness" becomes an issue.
That is the point. Reasonableness only exists when there's ambiguity or missing facts and only exists to CREATE a crime where you can't PROVE a crime (if you could prove that the act was criminal, reasonableness would be unnecessary) all while saying without evidence (and with plenty evidence to the contrary) that every other person on the planet would jump to the same conclusion as you did. Or as a paradox, reasonableness exists to create unreasonable situations.
I'm not demanding that the law be changed wholesale. The only required change is that the law only charge for crimes it can prove. For almost every greater charge, there is a lesser charge with wider scope. If you cannot prove the greater charge, then only prosecute the lesser charge (and don't prosecute the greater charge and the lesser charge while hoping "reasonableness", jury cynicism against the defendant, and randomness of the jury pool gets you a conviction).
Most good prosecutors already follow this principle and remove reasonableness as much as possible. When they do not is where many/most those wrongful convictions come into play (that and the unjust practice of plea bargaining). There seems to be very little to lose except bad prosecutions and bad convictions.
Gotcha, so then basically your entire rant has almost nothing to do with the actual topic, you just want to overthrow the entire system or something.
I was previously thinking that your comments had something to do with the topic, but now that you are admitting that you just want to, like, over throw the entire system and get rid of very common concepts in the law, I can ignore it for being basically irrelevant.
>Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent.
This has nothing to do with the use of "reasonableness" in law as you argue. There are all kinds of reasons a wrongful conviction could happen, such as falsified evidence. Claiming that the number of wrongful convictions is entirely because of slight ambiguity in various laws needs extraordinary sources, sources, and sources, because that is an extraordinary claim. You don't seem to realize just how widely used intent and reasonable compliance is in law.
A huge percentage of those wrongful convictions happen because there wasn't any evidence, but the police and prosecutors were "reasonable". The judge was "reasonable" and the juries were "reasonable" too. Despite the complete absence of facts to support their "reasonable" feeling, they managed to convict an astonishing number of innocent people.
If one jury is full of suspicious people who always see the worst in others and another jury is full of people who always assume the best, the idea of reasonableness says that both should reach the exact same conclusion. You of course recognize that both will convict when there is clear evidence of guilt, but only one will convict when "reasonableness" becomes an issue.
That is the point. Reasonableness only exists when there's ambiguity or missing facts and only exists to CREATE a crime where you can't PROVE a crime (if you could prove that the act was criminal, reasonableness would be unnecessary) all while saying without evidence (and with plenty evidence to the contrary) that every other person on the planet would jump to the same conclusion as you did. Or as a paradox, reasonableness exists to create unreasonable situations.
I'm not demanding that the law be changed wholesale. The only required change is that the law only charge for crimes it can prove. For almost every greater charge, there is a lesser charge with wider scope. If you cannot prove the greater charge, then only prosecute the lesser charge (and don't prosecute the greater charge and the lesser charge while hoping "reasonableness", jury cynicism against the defendant, and randomness of the jury pool gets you a conviction).
Most good prosecutors already follow this principle and remove reasonableness as much as possible. When they do not is where many/most those wrongful convictions come into play (that and the unjust practice of plea bargaining). There seems to be very little to lose except bad prosecutions and bad convictions.