UKH

Apparently "beyond reasonable doubt" is shortened by judges to "sure", as in "you can only convict if you are sure x did it".

Do the two phrases feel comparable to people?  I would say BRD is much stronger than sure.  For instance, I might be sure it's not going to rain today in my garden  but wouldn't be entirely surprised if it did.  By contrast, if I was in a desert I  might think it BRD.

In reply to MG:

There was an interesting discussion about this in one of the Secret Barrister's books where he describes occasions where a juror has misunderstood the term "beyond reasonable doubt", hence the move over to "sure"

In reply to MG:

I think the two things are the same, but I'm a pedantic old git and this might be something to do with the way the meanings of common words tend to drift over time.  (Generally towards being watered down.) 

So where "I am sure" maybe used to mean "I'm completely certain", now it means "Er..  yeah, I reckon.. probably."

Like the word "literally".  It used to mean literally, but now apparently it's completely ok to use it to mean figuratively (just with a bit of extra emphasis).

Eg: your mate is climbing really well.

"He's on fire!" - he's on really good form.  (Looking strong, moving well.)

"He's literally on fire!" - used to mean "Oh shit, somebody had better get a fire extinguisher, or at least wrap him up in a blanket", but now usually means "he's on really good form".

That was quite a recent change so there hasn't been time yet, but perhaps eventually a new word that will come along that we can use to mean literally 'literally'.

In reply to deepsoup:

Literally on fire means just that. Usage can't change that quickly.

In reply to Pedro50:

Personally I agree with you, but the Oxford English Dictionary says we're both wrong.

In reply to angry pirate:

It was that which started me thinking.  They just don't seem comparable to me.

In reply to MG:

I seem to recall a case in the past where the jury were dismissed for asking the (very sensible IMHO) question what actually constituted reasonable doubt, but I couldn't find a link

There are numerous phrases, (“reasonably foreseeable”, “reasonably practicable”) that aren't quite as clear cut as they initially appear.

To me, “sure” seems to imply a higher level of certainty than “beyond reasonable doubt”, as sure seems to imply absolute certainty.

In reply to deepsoup:

Bear in mind that the stated aim of the OED is to record usage.  It doesn't claim the authority to define the meaning of words.  It's simply recording that some people are using 'literally' to mean 'figuratively'.  They're still wrong.

OP: I'd actually put them the other way round, I think.  'Sure' means 'certain' to me.  I am sure the sun will come up tomorrow, whilst I think that evolution is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In reply to deepsoup:

Have you checked dictionary for confirmation that they are the same DS? Not a challenge, rather a question to save me from getting further distracted.

If they are the same, then common usage follows your literally example. 

- Get a coat, it's going to rain.

- Are you sure?

- Yes, I'm sure.

Sure here means 'I think', which doesn't really translate to beyond reasonable doubt.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

So it seems pretty confused with different people assigning different degrees of certainty.  Maybe  a jury averages understandings, but it doesn't seem very satisfactory to me.

In reply to MG:

The OED gives lots of meanings, some of which are towards the harder end of certainty.  

https://www.oed.com/oed2/00243226

Wouldn't "certain" be a better choice?

In reply to Ardo:

Nah. Im not having that. If I was asked if it was going to rain, I would check my three weather apps, the online met office forecast, go outside and check for dark clouds etc and only if the drops started to fall would I be 'sure'.

If I did all the above without seeing precipitation on the window I would say pretty sure or 'confident'.

If, as it mainly the case, the weather apps disagree and the clouds aren't gathering but it was greater than likely to rain I would say 'I think'.

In reply to MG:

Either that or “bang to rights, innit”

In reply to MG:

I'd agree that 'beyond reasonable doubt' has a nuanced meaning, and that 'sure' doesn't capture it!

In reply to MG:

I thought "beyond reasonable doubt" was the degree of surety. As in you must be sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

In reply to MG:

Yes, the rigorous, time-honoured code of 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is much stronger. Cp. e.g. 'I'm sure we'd have much better weather today if we went to Trowbarrow rather than Langdale.' Very far from 'beyond all reasonable doubt.'

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Are you saying that your response to the question of rain is common?

My experience with people's use of sure varies from think to hope, with only occasional certainties interspersed.

So, just checking, you know, cos er, like, I'm like definitely sure it's not common, like, you know.....

In reply to MG: This thread demonstrates quite nicely that sure isn't a particularly helpful word to use here.  I like 'beyond reasonable doubt ' - suggests you need to think a bit

In reply to Ardo:

Depending on the outside activity, I have been known to be quite careful when observing the weather, especially in the hills and MWIS.

I was, however, disagreeing with a poster on the use of sure so I'm not entirely 'sure' of your post.

In reply to wbo2:

It suggests that you need to think a lot, and very seriously and carefully (as in a court of law, where someone could otherwise be wrongly convicted).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes, as well as direct meaning there is the implication of seriousness.  Opposed to  "sure, he's guilty off to prison.  Pfft"  It feels very casual.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Indeed, so far as juries are concerned, there's a case on it called JL which is summarised as follows:

'In the case of JL the jury asked exactly such a question – specifically whether
the standard of proof was ‘100% certainty’ or ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and if
the latter, what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ actually means. With the agreement
of the advocates, the trial judge said:
(1) the jury was not required to be 100% certain (relevant only because the
question had been specifically asked),
(2) sure and beyond reasonable doubt meant the same thing; and
(3) a reasonable doubt was the sort of doubt that might affect the jurors’ minds
if they were making decisions in matters of importance in their own affairs,
their own lives.
In rejecting a renewed application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal said
that each answer was correct and appropriate, given the specific questions that
had been raised by the jury, and the final formulation as to reasonable doubt was
‘unexceptionable’.'

I think it is fairly easy to attain the state of mind: 'Yes, I'm sure'. No mental gymnastics needed

In reply to MG:

Surprised by those who think being "sure" of something is stronger than being "sure beyond all reasonable doubt".

I'm sure "Randy Andy" (as he used to be well known) is guilty of sexual offenses before I've even seen the evidence, due to the other things I know about his character and behaviour and the ridiculous story he concocted on this occasion... but I wouldn't say I was "sure beyond all reasonable doubt" without scrutinising the evidence thoroughly and taking expert legal advice.

Interestingly though, the original reason for bringing in reasonable doubt was to make it easier to convict... Before that they used to talk about being liable to the vengeance of God for convicting someone. Perhaps this is just another step down the road of making it easier to fill the jails.

In reply to Siward:

Is it you or the judge saying that?  It makes no sense!

In reply to MG:

The last line: me!

I've edited it...

In reply to Siward:

OK!

I think the problem is "sure" has quite different meanings and strengths in different contexts, as seen in this thread.  It seems a poor choice.

In reply to MG:

Not necessarily. I think one of the problems is that different jurors will have different propensities to doubt. For example, those with a scientific education (A Level or beyond - a small proportion I accept) may well be more inclined to doubt and would be very reluctant ever to convict if the standard was defined as "certain". There was a good example up-thread. Darwin's theory of evolution is proved "beyond reasonable doubt" but few scientists would go so far as to say they were "certain". After all, for several hundred years, scientists were pretty certain Newtonian physics was correct, but then doubts started to creep in, and Einstein came along. I can think of other categories of juror who would tend to apply different standards. Religious jurors might tend to doubt less than agnostics or atheists. I doubt there exists a form of words that overcomes this problem. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is probably about as good as there is.

My only experience as a juror was in a case where we all agreed that the defendant was not guilty. So whether any of us had slight doubts about that was irrelevant. There was way we could convict. 

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Almost like there was a reason for it being chosen...!

In reply to MG:

Sure could be a non technical equivalent,  Absolutely sure certainly is but Pretty Sure is definitely not (possibly equates to "more probable than not".

The real problem with sure is that being everyday terminology it gives no context for the surety or explanation of what quality of information it may be based on (someone put it on Facebook, honest!)

In reply to Ciro:

I am surprised too, when it is considered that the actual meaning of BRD is that the conviction of the jury must be so strong that to that jury having any doubt in the matter can be considered unreasonable

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

In the English language usage is what defines the meaning of words, that's just how English works.  What the OED records is as close to definitive as it gets because there's no institution than does claim the authority to define words, no English language equivalent to the Académie Française for example.

Which is probably just as well, because if there were such a thing the globally accepted standard would be American.  So often as not the outcome would be even more annoying than the OED occasionally recording 'wrong' usage.

In reply to MG:

I think 'beyond reasonable doubt' is more definite as to the standard of proof than 'sure', if I was on a jury I'd prefer the more definite wording even though it is longer.

Going slightly off topic, I thought Epstein's lawyer's clause was an absolute classic of the lawyers swallowing a thesaurus and going way beyond what is useful to try and remove all doubt.  I'd love to see the same lawyers draft the verdict with a whole thesaurus of words for nonce and sentencing 'until the end of the world' when he finally gets his comeuppance.

"HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have, or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release."

In reply to MG:

I don't think so. I don't think any such judgement could be certain, because there will always be some doubt in evidence.

BRD can be used to rule out what seems an implausible defence: "aliens made me do it", for instance. It is BRD to says that aliens were not the cause.

In reply to Ridge:

It is a sensible question, I guess that's the benefit of having 12 randomly selected people to view things from different perspectives, with the theory being that after deliberation any doubt still remaining is reasonable.

In reply to MG:

The meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt" is whatever a random selection of 12-15 members of the public without legal training decide it is.

Hence whatever it means, it will vary a bit from jury to jury, despite the guidance given in court.

In reply to Timmd:

I've found the quote, it was from the Vicky Pryce trial (Chris Hunhe's ex wife who took his speeding points for him):

Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Mr Justice Sweeney said: "The standard of proof that the prosecution must achieve before you can convict is simply this, the prosecution must make you feel sure of guilt, that is the same as but no more than the proof of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

"A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable.

"These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have already given."

In reply to Pedro50:

You're literally wrong. Like, literally. 

:P

In reply to Pedro50:

I've seen a number of examples in my lifetime of usage changing. It depends what you mean by quickly.

My mother - born 1918 - would habitually say "five and twenty past six" rather than "twenty-five past six" or "six twenty five". By the time she died, still using that usage, virtually no-one else was. More recently there's the advent of "So" as a meaningless word used to start almost any sentence, particularly when being interviewed on television or radio (which my mother would always have call "wireless"). "So" seems to have almost completely replaced "Well" as the word of choice when giving yourself just a little extra time to compose an answer. And this has happened within the last five years. Another example is the use of "around" as in "We'll need to have a chat around how to resolve that" rather than "about" or "with regard to". That seemed quite odd when I first heard it in the late 90's. Now I use it myself without thinking.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

For a rather ridiculous example, look at how the definition of 'nice' has shifted over the years.  It's meant 'foolish', 'promiscuous', 'cowardly', 'lazy', 'precise'... that last definition certainly extended into the later part of the last century.

Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf gives 'So.' as the first sentence, as his rendition of 'Hwaet!'.  I quite like it!

I've certainly picked up that other use of 'so', as a placefiller, especially when teaching.  I guess it's slightly better than 'ummmm'...

In reply to Martin Hore:

All good points, but to say literally when you actually mean "not literally" is ludicrous. It's like saying fat when you mean thin or dead when you mean alive. Harrumph. 

In reply to Pedro50:

I'm literally dying to contradict you on that one.

Martin

In reply to Pedro50:

I like to use 'figuratively' where 'literally' would be  appropriate.

E.g.

"I am figuratively quite tired. "

Perhaps others would like to join me in this usage. I think it will even things up. 

In reply to Martin Hore:

I still occasionally use "five and twenty past/to" because it has a charm to it, Dad always used it. "So" at the start of every reply, to questioning on TV etc gets really irritating, once would be forgiven. "Like", as every other 4th or 5th word, is horrible - and I wonder why the teaching profession don't stamp it out in school. But the worst crime IMHO is "one of the only" when they mean "one of the very few". Ignorance beyond reasonable doubt... In both flavours of "ignorance".

In reply to petemeads:

It's an idiom.  You must be seriously pedantic to object.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham

What about "sure and certain hope of the resurrection?" Can a hope be sure and certain?

In reply to deepsoup:

yes, but the OED has zip-tie as a new word so it can't be that up to date, it also has womxn as meaning single woman, I gave up with it after that.

In reply to MG:

Which contrasts with this, where you only need to be slightly pedantic to object (the BBC reporting on the MET handling the windsor / epstein claims).

"... Ms Guiffre's allegations against Prince Andrew. In line with its cast-iron policy of only rarely confirming the identity of anyone featuring in its work"

A cast iron policy of sometimes doing it  but sometimes not.

In reply to Seocan:

perhaps they (the Met) mean their alibi, a more usual assocation of "cast-iron"y

In reply to russellcampbell:

"Surely not", or should that be "certainly not". Interesting that in the negative the difference seems much clearer. 

As for the resurrection - far to many reasonable people around who express doubt for this ever to pass the BRD test.

Martin

In reply to MG:

‘Be sure of guilt’ is the standard applied today. 

In reply to russellcampbell:

That would be an ecumenical matter.

In reply to deepsoup:

Hyperbole is a common feature of slang. It's always used with tongue in cheek. Fantastic, amazing, wicked etc.

Outstanding was on trend for a while. It never meant what it said, especially when ofsted said it. "Sound" was the ultimate in approbation. Hypobole? 

A climber can give no higher praise than:

The Troll Wall?

"Good effort."

In reply to Pete Pozman:

A friend of my partner completed a show jumping round with one fence down. "Good effort" I said. It didn't go down well. 

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Brilliant!!

In reply to Itzal:

Err yes, as discussed over 40 posts!