The Philosophy of Reasonability in Law

Abstract

It irked my curiosity that the standards of proof we have in our Common Law system all depend on how “reasonable” the proof sounds and how bulletproof the evidence “appears” to be. For instance, criminal law requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt BRD ,” where jurors must have no reasonable or possible doubt about the completeness of the evidence in the case before someone is put to death or adjudged guilty; this is a sine qua non, since nothing short of such a high standard is acceptable in matters concerning life and death. Civil litigation requires either “clear and convincing evidence CCE ” or a “preponderance of evidence POE .” CCE is required when there is a potential loss of important and vital interests, such as deportation, involuntary commitment to a mental health institution, disbarment, and termination of parental rights. POE is required, such as in divorce, construction claims litigation, professional liability, tort springing from negligence, and discrimination cases, where it only needs to be reasonably shown that it is more likely than not that the stated contention is true. CCE exacts a higher standard of proof than just a preponderance of evidence. Essentially, clear and convincing requires some reason that is more than more likely or not. Thus, “clear and convincing” lies somewhere between beyond a reasonable doubt and a preponderance of evidence. The cutoff points of what is reasonable beyond a doubt or what is clear and convincing evidence are not a set standard.