:The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial
Pieter Spierenburg
This book is a good example of historical research with definite practical relevance. James Q. Whitman's starting point the problem implied by phrase “beyond reasonable doubt.” American juries are expected not to convict person unless they have reached this stage certainty. The Supreme Court considers it constitutional standard, even though these words absent from Constitution. doubt standard widely regarded as an important safeguard for defendants' rights. No one, however, seems able explain exactly when one has passed doubt, nor which doubts and unreasonable. search origins takes him back late antiquity. According Whitman, two kinds procedure operate within criminal law. One concerned establishing factual proof. That type most common today, especially in United States, where plea bargaining ensures that unclear cases almost only ones go court. In Middle Ages, contrast, fact-finding played minor role. small communities concerned, everyone had basic idea about what happened fama actors involved. was case revenge murders, example, preferably carried out front many spectators. witnesses were reluctant make statement under oath. reluctance might stem fear becoming vengeance victims themselves, but do just well salvation risks inherent oath-taking. Historically more hesitation judges. They often moral qualms sentencing death, regardless how clear facts were. Theologians reinforced arguing judge who unjust judgment or merely rejoiced someone death made himself into murderer. all such other set trial procedures came play: those aimed at securing comfort. originated device test As long lingering on judge's bosom unreasonable, he need going hell.
The American Historical Review