Why isn't there a better clearer surer more dependable legal standard?
"Reasonable doubt" is the highest burden of proof in law and is used in criminal cases.
Compare the burden of proof used in civil proceedings: "balance of probabilities":
- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
“Beyond reasonable doubt” is a very high standard of proof: essentially the court has to be convinced that there is “no doubt” that something is true. This has to be the case, as the consequences of a person being found guilty in a criminal case are usually much more serious than the potential consequences in a civil matter, which usually involve an order to pay money.
In civil cases the standard of proof is much lower.
This is the case because losing at trial will not end up with an event such as a life-long prison sentence.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, who must prove that on the balance of probabilities, his/her case is true. This means that the court must be satisfied that on the evidence, the occurrence of an event was more likely than not. [...]"
Extract source:
Burnetts [British lawyers] Factsheet "On the "balance of probabilities", by Gillian Carey:
https://www.burnetts.co.uk/blog/on-the-balance-of-probabilities
- - - - End of extract - - - -
Robert 