THE STANDARD OF PROOF “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT” IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

The article emphasizes that the standard “beyond reasonable doubt” is the
“cornerstone” of criminal proceedings, without which neither justice, nor legality,
nor observance of fundamental human rights in a democratic society are possible.
It is emphasized that the defining meaning of the standard “beyond reasonable
doubt” is to establish the highest level of confidence in the truth of the proven
circumstances, necessary to recognize a person as guilty of committing a criminal
offense. It is substantiated that the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”
appears as a fundamental criterion of the criminal process, which determines the
quality and reliability of decisions made regarding the guilt or innocence of a person. Its essence lies in the need for the court or jury to be convinced of the
guilt of a person to the extent that there are no reasonable, logically motivated
and based on objective evidence doubts. The content of this standard is
determined not only by the assessment of the available evidence, but also by the
requirement for its totality, quality and consistency, which makes it impossible to
convict on the basis of assumptions or insufficiently convincing arguments. It has
been found that the features of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard are,
firstly, its flexibility and evolution – the absence of a clear legislative definition
allows for changes in the legal consciousness of society and judicial practice to be
taken into account. Secondly, this standard is evaluative and requires the court to
take a critical approach to the analysis of each piece of evidence, as well as their
interrelationship. Thirdly, it distinguishes reasonable doubts, based on facts and
common sense, from artificial or theoretical doubts, based on reluctance to reach
a conclusion or fears not supported by evidence.