Beyond a Reasonable Doubt The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation canbe derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a personis innocent until proven guilty. If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then theprosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that anyreasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that noReasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard ofproof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdensof proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even bythe smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to beproved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that suchproceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far moresevere than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt
The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”). In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
All is under 'ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat' until proven guilty regardless of guilt or innocence. It is up to individuals to bring the guilty before The Court of Law if they know of a person's guilt yet none others do if they want the situation to be remedied of the wrong doer. If not, then any true guilt being carried on under the guise of innocence is left unchecked. In other words, to acquit the guilty or justify the wicked is and will bring the correction of God upon those places during His Day Rule, or Millennium. 'Life' will not go on as usual within His Day Rule. It's either work with Him or continue to deceive yourself that life can resume to 'normal' within the corruption(s). Once His Day Rule has begun, which it already may have, the Earth ... as is day/1000 years/Millennium, and after that, the Last Day. And it's remarkable how NASA has found a hole in the Sun the size of 50 earth's wide in 2015. https://www.space.com/30839-giant-sun-hole-50-earths-wide.html
All births in and after the year ~ 2009 is considered to be within Generation Alpha. The Greek Alphabet, to which the Generations will be named after, moving away from the Latin Alphabet, has 24 letters. 1000 years divided by 24 = 41.66 years per Greek letter... The last letter in the Greek Alphabet is Omega.. Hence the Alpha and the Omega, or the beginning and the end. Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." The Day of The LORD and The Day of Christ are two separate. The Day of The LORD is as 1000 years, or The Millennium. The Day of Christ is The Last Day. That is why it is much more advised to 'work' with The LORD than to resist so that you may live a fuller life instead of a life being in constant contention with HIM. If you are not living in any 'illegal' way, I guess you shouldn't have too much to worry about. Basically, The LORD will correct those whom HE desires to correct. And I don't see why a Law Abiding citizen should have any fears of doing wrong if they are not. Don't go past the speed limit, don't get a speeding ticket, I guess.
I shouldn't say 'guaranteed' but that one Day is with The Lord as a thousand years. 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
I'm sure there are alot of U.S. citizens who will continue living their lives as they have been.. To them, living righteously is their preference and so are probably used to it.
You were doing fine as long as the posts stayed secular. When you decided to mix assumptions about God's behavior into a discussion about secular criminal law, you erred. That is never a good plan.
It seems to me that in most criminal cases you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Especially in most misdemeanor courts and district courts. In texas, even traffic courts have prosecutors so if you want to pleed not guilty you have to have trial by jury. What a crock. I have noticed by reading many appeals cases that seldom does the court side with the defendant when it comes to a reasonable doubt or Knowingly. In fact when an element of the crime that must be proved by the prosicutor is that the defendant must have knowingly committed the crime, the defendant rarely wins. It is a joke.
Except that is not how courts work. If you don't want a coin toss deciding your fate, you better prove your innocence. And many judges won't let you speak at your own trial except to answer yes or no questions. Many lawyers also do not defend their clients but will take there money. Fact is, cases are hard to prove, and too many victims would see their attackers walk free to retalliate if jurors don't convict. Pretrial jury selection is highly important. The judge selects them, overruling any defence objections if they want. I doubt most public defenders even participate.
Your an idiot, the judge does not select the jury, the defense and prosecuters do. You can always choose to testify in your own defense. You are right IMO that you are guilty until you pay a fortune to prove your innocence. The system is totally screwed up.
Your first sentence speaks for itself. The prosecutor and defense can only suggest what jurt they want. The judge decides for each request. That is a ton of power, since the prisecutor will select the most hostile jury possible. That is why we should outlaw jury selection, and opt for random juries. The only way a juror should be eliminated is if they know someone there, or similar conflict. Currently, either side can eliminate an unlimited number of jurors with judge approval, and 20 for no reason at all. The resulting jury is anything but random. And bail bonds are automatic finee before being tried.
