Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt....

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT


In this weekends ESPN Outside the Lines episode entitled "Greater Baseball Sin: PED's or Gambling" the WWLIS commemorated the 20th anniversary of Pete Rose's banishment from baseball by comparing the two relative evils.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4417298&categoryid=3286128

In the discussion, Houston columnist Richard Justice made comment to the effect that regarding Hall of Fame voting and PED suspects "...if there is that reasonable doubt, these guys are not getting in." blah, blah, blah and "...character is an issue in HOF voting."

Now, granted these guys are not trained as attorneys--and Bob Ley is usually so much better at correcting obvious errors, sadly even he remained silent--but I immediately thought that the American system of justice is predicated on the premise that if there is a reasonable doubt--in the words of Johnny Cochran--you must acquit. And this does not mean that the person charged is considered "innocent", just that the burden of proof--borne by the accuser--has not been met. The accused does not have to prove his innocence because in many cases one cannot prove a negative.

So I did some research.

From http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm
we find the following definition of reasonable doubt.

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

OK, that's what I thought.

From Wikipedia under "burden of proof" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

The "standard of proof" is the level of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof or the balance of probabilities:
beyond a reasonable doubt -- (highest level of proof, used mainly in criminal trials)
preponderance of evidence -- (lowest level of proof, used mainly in civil trials)
In addition to these, the U.S. introduced a third standard called clear and convincing evidence, which is the medium level of proof, used, for example, in cases in which the state seeks to terminate parental rights.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF


Now, I'm not going to go into the merits of individual cases, but it boggles my mind that the American past time and its leadership would bypass fundamentally American values and beliefs about justice in this area.

As a baseball fan, it is ironic that I enjoy watching the pro football induction ceremony more than the baseball version. In football, the players and the presenters, seem genuinely humbled by the honor and take great effort to acknowledge where the Glory truly belongs. And it's not on themselves.

Football's induction ceremony is a celebration of the players and owners who jointly have left sweat and blood on the fields and in the stadiums to advance "The Game". They seem to be able to put aside whatever disagreements they may have as individual constituents to at least celebrate each others contribution and the game itself for at least one afternoon. Baseball can take a lesson from them.

The baseball players come off as pompass jackasses who feel that they are being rightfully deified and place at the right hand of God. I mean Jim Rice didn't wait much longer than the length of a home stand before launching into an attack at his "lesser" peers who currently patrol the fields and ply the trade. For crying out loud, the guy barely got in on his merits--which given the self-absorbed, self-indulgent chowder head alumni and media that pushed him over the edge with endless politicking--and he has the nerve to criticize Derek Jeter. AYFKM???!!!

Rice's comments and Justice's faux pas or Freudian slip demonstrate the hateful attitude that lives in the hearts of most in the baseball media and former ball players. It is fundamentally destructive to the very game that these jackasses profess to love.

These guys are accusing people of committing "crimes against baseball". If that is the case, they need to understand the burden of proof required and not hide behind the skirt of the court of public opinion for a lowered, lynch mob standard of proof.

Maybe we should take the responsibility away from the writers and the veterans committee who have clear conflicts of interests and inherent biases, and leave it to the computer geeks.

From the Wall Street Journal: A Computer Cracks the Cooperstown Code
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124864577360682129.html