People don’t generally form beliefs with that level of precision. “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the usual instruction, for exactly this reason. And the underlying belief is “appears likely enough that it’s preferable to hold the person publicly responsible”.
Having sat on a jury (for a rather dull case of a failed burglary), I concur with this.
Jury confidentiality is taken seriously in the UK, so I can’t comment on our deliberations, but the consensus was that it was him wot dunnit. He looked resigned rather than indignant when the verdict was read out, so with that and the evidence I’m as sure as I need to be that we got it right. I couldn’t put a number on it, but 0.000001 is way smaller than a reasonable doubt.
People don’t generally form beliefs with that level of precision. “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the usual instruction, for exactly this reason. And the underlying belief is “appears likely enough that it’s preferable to hold the person publicly responsible”.
Having sat on a jury (for a rather dull case of a failed burglary), I concur with this.
Jury confidentiality is taken seriously in the UK, so I can’t comment on our deliberations, but the consensus was that it was him wot dunnit. He looked resigned rather than indignant when the verdict was read out, so with that and the evidence I’m as sure as I need to be that we got it right. I couldn’t put a number on it, but 0.000001 is way smaller than a reasonable doubt.