NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine Jesus is accused of some felony criminal conduct.

The Defense shows a preponderance of evidence that Jesus was not involved in the crime.

An argument has been made that this is insufficient to acquit Jesus since a) the burdern is on the prosecution, and b) the standard of evidence in criminal cases is one of "beyond reasonable doubt", a more rigorous standard than preponderance.

I believe, however, that for precisely these reasons, Jesus should be acquitted.

The preponderance, in favor of the defense, shows that Jesus was uninvolved, "more likely than not". As a result, we can infer that the prosecution has failed to show that the preponderance of evidence is in their favor.

If the prosecution has not met even the lesser standard evidence of preponderance, how can they claim to have met the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

So, my questions for nationstates:

A) In America, would preponderance in favor of the defense justify an acquittal?

B) In your country (or a pertinent international context), what would happen?

If you live in an area where Jesus Rodriguez in an uncommon name, imagine the defendant is named Barry or Nigel. It doesn't really matter.

Imagine Jesus is accused of some felony criminal conduct.

The Defense shows a preponderance of evidence that Jesus was not involved in the crime.

An argument has been made that this is insufficient to acquit Jesus since a) the burdern is on the prosecution, and b) the standard of evidence in criminal cases is one of "beyond reasonable doubt", a more rigorous standard than preponderance.

I believe, however, that for precisely these reasons, Jesus should be acquitted.

The preponderance, in favor of the defense, shows that Jesus was uninvolved, "more likely than not". As a result, we can infer that the prosecution has failed to show that the preponderance of evidence is in their favor.

If the prosecution has not met even the lesser standard evidence of preponderance, how can they claim to have met the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

So, my questions for nationstates:

A) In America, would preponderance in favor of the defense justify an acquittal?

B) In your country (or a pertinent international context), what would happen?

If you live in an area where Jesus Rodriguez in an uncommon name, imagine the defendant is named Barry or Nigel. It doesn't really matter.

It might just be me but I have no idea what you're saying.

Imagine Jesus is accused of some felony criminal conduct.

The Defense shows a preponderance of evidence that Jesus was not involved in the crime.

An argument has been made that this is insufficient to acquit Jesus since a) the burdern is on the prosecution, and b) the standard of evidence in criminal cases is one of "beyond reasonable doubt", a more rigorous standard than preponderance.

I believe, however, that for precisely these reasons, Jesus should be acquitted.

The preponderance, in favor of the defense, shows that Jesus was uninvolved, "more likely than not". As a result, we can infer that the prosecution has failed to show that the preponderance of evidence is in their favor.

If the prosecution has not met even the lesser standard evidence of preponderance, how can they claim to have met the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

So, my questions for nationstates:

A) In America, would preponderance in favor of the defense justify an acquittal?

B) In your country (or a pertinent international context), what would happen?

If you live in an area where Jesus Rodriguez in an uncommon name, imagine the defendant is named Barry or Nigel. It doesn't really matter.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/530/pancakebunnyhq4.png (http://imageshack.us)

Imagine Jesus is accused of some felony criminal conduct.

The Defense shows a preponderance of evidence that Jesus was not involved in the crime.

An argument has been made that this is insufficient to acquit Jesus since a) the burdern is on the prosecution, and b) the standard of evidence in criminal cases is one of "beyond reasonable doubt", a more rigorous standard than preponderance.

I believe, however, that for precisely these reasons, Jesus should be acquitted.

The preponderance, in favor of the defense, shows that Jesus was uninvolved, "more likely than not". As a result, we can infer that the prosecution has failed to show that the preponderance of evidence is in their favor.

If the prosecution has not met even the lesser standard evidence of preponderance, how can they claim to have met the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

So, my questions for nationstates:

A) In America, would preponderance in favor of the defense justify an acquittal?

B) In your country (or a pertinent international context), what would happen?

If you live in an area where Jesus Rodriguez in an uncommon name, imagine the defendant is named Barry or Nigel. It doesn't really matter.

In absence of a trial, where the evidence is laid out to be examined, I say he's innocent.

i don't care about this jesus dude whoever he is, but if there's some cultural bias in favour of someone with that name that should not be sufficient to acquit him of a crime.

Imagine Jesus is accused of some felony criminal conduct.

The Defense shows a preponderance of evidence that Jesus was not involved in the crime.

An argument has been made that this is insufficient to acquit Jesus since a) the burdern is on the prosecution, and b) the standard of evidence in criminal cases is one of "beyond reasonable doubt", a more rigorous standard than preponderance.

I believe, however, that for precisely these reasons, Jesus should be acquitted.

The preponderance, in favor of the defense, shows that Jesus was uninvolved, "more likely than not". As a result, we can infer that the prosecution has failed to show that the preponderance of evidence is in their favor.

If the prosecution has not met even the lesser standard evidence of preponderance, how can they claim to have met the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

So, my questions for nationstates:

A) In America, would preponderance in favor of the defense justify an acquittal?

B) In your country (or a pertinent international context), what would happen?

If you live in an area where Jesus Rodriguez in an uncommon name, imagine the defendant is named Barry or Nigel. It doesn't really matter.?? Jesus was tried already and found guilty. That's why he was executed.

What the hell are you talking about?

Either way, if OJ did it then Jesus probably did it too.

What the hell are you talking about?

Either way, if OJ did it then Jesus probably did it too.Jesus was no virgin? :eek: But he was only around guys....

His father has to much influence. He will always be acquitted.

His father has to much influence. He will always be acquitted.Well, he wasn't last time. :rolleyes:

In absence of a trial, where the evidence is laid out to be examined, I say he's innocent.

In this instance, the arguments and evidence have been presented at trial, with the outcome that the defense has provided a preponderance of evidence in their favor.

So the question revolves around whether the defense satisfying a "preponderance" of evidence in their favor necessarily precludes the prosecution having satisifed "beyond a reasonable doubt" in their own favor. I believe it does, but I'm exploring ways in which I could be wrong.

i don't care about this jesus dude whoever he is, but if there's some cultural bias in favour of someone with that name that should not be sufficient to acquit him of a crime.

Well, for purposes of discussion, we can call him Eamon or Michael.

You knew what was coming when you named him Jesus.

*waits for LG to find this thread*

wouldn't a preponderance of evidence favoring the defense automatically contain the notion of reasonable doubt of guilt? how could one fail to have reasonable doubts while also holding that the defense's evidence is greater and outweighs the hypotheses and evidence presented by the prosecution?

?? Jesus was tried already and found guilty. That's why he was executed.

But had he been tried in a contemporary proceeding, would the satisfaction of a lesser standard of evidence of innocence by the defense contradict the potential for the prosecution to satisfy a greater (or even equal) standard of evidence for the finding of guilty?

He's a Puerto Rican, so of course the US courts will find him guilty.

wouldn't a preponderance of evidence favoring the defense automatically contain the notion of reasonable doubt of guilt? how could one fail to have reasonable doubts while also holding that the defense's evidence is greater and outweighs the hypotheses and evidence presented by the prosecution?


This is my position as well.

You knew what was coming when you named him Jesus.

*waits for LG to find this thread*

Who's LG?

Who's LG?

Lunatic Goofballs.

wouldn't a preponderance of evidence favoring the defense automatically contain the notion of reasonable doubt of guilt? how could one fail to have reasonable doubts while also holding that the defense's evidence is greater and outweighs the hypotheses and evidence presented by the prosecution?

I agree completely (hope this posts).