|
The standard of proof is the level of proof, or level of evidence needed to convince the court of given verdict, demanded in a case in a court of law.
In the United Kingdom, the United States, and most Commonwealth jurisdictions, the standard of proof in criminal trials is "beyond reasonable doubt". This means that all the accused needs to do in order to prove to the judge of his innocence is merely to raise reasonable doubt that he or she in fact committed the crime.
By contrast in civil trials the standard is normally "on the balance of probabilities" which means, according to the British judge Lord Denning in Miller v Minister of Pension, "more probable than not." In simple terms, the likelihood of the crime happening is more than likelihood of it not happening.
The difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof has raised some interesting cases, most notably of O.J. Simpson. Cleared by the criminal trial of murder, the civil trial later ordered substantial damages against him, in effect concluding that he was guilty of murder.
Standard of proof in areas other than law
Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.
Consider for example the statement of some putative tourist rep when greeting you in a new and foreign location:
"It rained yesterday, but the rest of the week should be bright and sunny"
You may in fact demand no proof whatsoever for this statement, but simply take it on faith. The standard of proof which you apply to a statement that it seems reasonable to believe is therefore very low, or non-existent. In contrast, if somebody told you:
"It has been raining here every day for the last fifty years, but this week should be bright and sunny"
You would be quite reasonable not to take such a statement 'on faith' (or equivalently, apply a zero based standard of proof), but rather to demand a higher standard of proof than mere assertion. For example, you might wish for an explanation of what has changed to stop the rain, how the tourist rep can be so sure, and why do none of the shops sell any sun tan lotion?
The conclusion that the less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires can be seen elsewhere in life. The scientific consensus on cold fusion, for example. The majority believes this can not really work, because believing that it would do so would force the alteration of a great many other beleifs about thermodynamics.
Similarly, many atheists demand greater evidence for the existence of God than can be provided by believers of whichever religion, because the standard of proof required to accept such a propositon would appear to be, on a rational analysis, extraordinarily high. This may be why many religions believe that faith, and not reason is the most important virtue.
See also
| 
