Reasonable Doubt: An Origins Story

Reasonable doubt is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system.  Criminal defense attorneys frequently invoke its name as a protection for their clients.  The State must prove that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt is the lynchpin in a jury or judge’s determination.  However, reasonable doubt’s origins relate to a juror’s soul and had very little to do with the defendant’s rights.

James Whitman of Yale Law makes extensive commentary in his writings about the religious origins of reasonable doubt (http://www.law.yale.edu/news/6300.htm). Christian jurors had two main concerns in the 1700s: retribution from the defendant’s family and what would happen to their souls if they convicted an innocent man.  Conviction was not something taken lightly by religious jurors at that time.  Jurors in the late 1700s and 1800s viewed jury duty as something ominous that could put their mortal souls in great danger.  There was much fire and brimstone-style language about what happened if someone misjudged an innocent man.  Whitman details blood punishments and “mansions in hell” as examples.   In line with these beliefs, when doubt arose it was viewed as preferable to take the “safer way” and acquit as opposed to convicting an innocent man. As a result, reasonable doubt was born in the 1780s.

Fast-forward to today and we find jurors in a much different position.  It would be a rare event to find jurors who are concerned with “damnation” or their “eternal souls” during a jury trial, although there are probably some people who feel that way.  The separation of church and state in America has likely led juries to feel more comfortable convicting as a service to the State.  But are convictions a bit too easy in modern times?  Although 1780s reasonable doubt feels antiquated, there is some comfort in the fact that jurors in our history took their roles quite seriously and gave cases their entire attention to make sure they were not wrongly convicting the innocent. 

Being aware of the historical context of reasonable doubt can help remind us how serious it is to convict someone of a crime.  Although the rationale for taking jury deliberations seriously has changed from the 1800s, picking a jury who gives a case thoughtful consideration is always the goal regardless of the context or time period.  Fairness can only exist when all those participating the justice system remember what a conviction truly means and treat the proceedings with the gravity and serious consideration they deserve.