reasonable doubt :: essays research papers

A Burden Worth HavingI dont quite remember what I was doing in Baltimore. Suddenly, through a chain of random events, I ended up in jail for grand larceny. Although I was confident of my innocence, even my exceed friends testified against me. I found no hope in our judicial system. Fortunately, I could escape that situation. My alarm rang, and I woke up. Others, however, dont have that option. Such is the report of Kirk Bloodsworth. In 1985, he was sent to death row accused of killing and raping a 9-year-old girl from Maryland. In 1992, when deoxyribonucleic acid testing was in its infancy, Bloodsworth pushed for a DNA test to prove he was not the killer. It was not a match. The state of Maryland set him free and paid him $300,000 for wrongful imprisonment.The governments nub to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the culpability of a suspect is ideal because it represents the recognition, on the part of the government, that our judicial system is not infallible, as Mr. Bloodsworths case points out.When instituted in the late 18th century, the burden of proof was a response to arbitrary arrests for political or economic interests. The governments decision to enact the burden of proof symbolizes the popular resentment of these violations of liberty. Hence, the principle of it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one vindicated man to go to prison.The United States has historically promoted the rights of man and liberty. The sentencing of an innocent person not only displays the inefficiency of a governments judicial system to extend these values, but also the irreversible damage done to the individual. The pressure that law enforcement officials face from the public to find closure to cases highlight one reason why the burden of proof is essential in the judicial system. When a police department deposenot find suspects to charge for a crime, it is then seen as a chastisement on its part. In October, a rally was organized against the death penalty in Houston, Texas. Amnesty International revealed 180 boxes containing unexamined files with vital information about cases involving prisoners on death row. Potential evidence that could lead to the exoneration from death row of these individuals was not taken into consideration during their trials. This revelation demonstrates how law enforcement officials and the judicial system can carelessly make mistakes and why the burden of proof is necessary.