BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

In common law countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. the standard of proof required in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a higher burden of proof than in civil cases, where it is usually "the balance of probabilities". Basically, if there is any doubt about any part of the prosecution's case, then the defendant should be acquitted. The idea is that it is better to let someone go free who might be guilty than lock up (or execute) someone who might be innocent.

There is a further complication, to do with the role of a jury. If the jury convicts, then the defendant has the right to appeal, one or more times. But if the jury acquits the defendant, for whatever reason and however perverse that decision may seem to outsiders, then that is it. The criminal process is finished.

A third legal principle concerns the role of self-defence. Killing someone in self-defence can be a genuine defence to the crime of murder or manslaughter, but only in certain circumstances. The details vary from jurisidiction to jurisdiction. But basically, the defendant must first genuinely believe that their own life is at risk. Secondly, the response to that must be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances. Some years ago, there was an outcry when a Norfolk farmer was convicted of murder for shooting a burglar who had broken into his house; "we're no longer allowed to defend our own property", howled the tabloids. However, while the jury accepted the defendant's assertion that he feared for his life, they quite clearly thought that his response was totally unreasonable; the burglar was shot dead in the back as he was trying to escape from the house through a window.

Some of these elementary principles seem to have been forgotten in the recent case of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year old black boy shot dead in February 2012 in disputed circumstances by George Zimmermann, a white security guard on a private housing estate in Florida. Mr. Zimmermann has always maintained that he fired in self-defence, even though he admitted starting the altercation with Mr. Martin which escalated with fatal consequences. The problem for the prosecution was that there were only two witnesses to what happened, namely the two people involved; and one of them is no longer alive. So it was simply not possible for the jury to come to a view on whether Mr. Zimmermann's actions were reasonable or not. Against that background, the only logical verdict was acquittal; the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Many black people feel that the justice system in America (and elsewhere) is biased against them; if Mr. Martin had been white and Mr. Zimmermann black, then the outcome would have been guilty. While there is ample evidence of racial discrimination in criminal matters, I have to say that in this particular case, I think they are wrong. The pity is that as recent and planned demonstrations show, much effort will be spent trying to change the verdict in this case (which is not possible) instead of concentrating on other matters such as eliminating the death penalty, reducing custodial sentences for minor drug offences, ensuring better access to public defendants, and (not least) working out why a security guard on a housing estate needs to be armed. None of those will help Mr. Martin, but they might make it a little bit less likely that a similar thing occurred in the future.

Walter Blotscher