The horrific consequences of allowing those with an agenda to exercise the power of "interpretation" are beyond dispute. That is, "reasonable doubt" will mean whatever an individual chooses it to mean, as open to interpretation as the Bible or the Koran. Unless we separately analyze "reasonable" and "doubt" in the context of a criminal trial, the term will degenerate to cliché status: endlessly repeated, but devoid of any actual meaning. To ensure a uniform standard for "reasonable doubt," we must subject the term itself to dispassionate dissection. If we refuse to grant such god–like power to others, we have to do the work ourselves. When we anoint such an interpreter, we walk a smoother path. Therefore, whoever has the power to define which acts (or individuals) are "evil" also has the power to control our conduct. A simple illustration will suffice: we all agree that "evil" is a bad thing. History has taught that if we allow interpretations to control reality, truth is the first victim of the chaos to follow. The interpretation of "reasonable doubt" is as unstable (and as potentially explosive) as nitroglycerin in a cocktail shaker. Jurors, charged with the responsibility of making life–and–death decisions, are told to apply this legalese–larded "standard." But not only is this "standard" purely adjectival, movies and television have morphed it into a Rashomon'style point'of'view. The interpretation of "reasonable doubt" is as unstable (and as potentially explosive) as nitroglycerin in a cocktail shaker.ĭespite what the media have led us to believe, the hallowed phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not self–explanatory. Originally published on The Zero, July 04, 2011 "The Truth of 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' " by Andrew Vachss: The Zero 5.0laf – The Official Website of Andrew Vachss
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |