How does burden of proof work?

Dear Mirror Lawyer, I noticed that in civil law countries, an accused person who is arraigned before the court is deemed innocent and the prosecution must establish their guilt.

However, in common law jurisdictions, the accused is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved.

The burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. The result is that many guilty individuals would escape justice if the prosecution is unable to present the necessary evidence to prove their guilt in court.

 Is there any reason for this approach in criminal prosecution? Is it right to permit criminals to escape justice using the high burden of proof? 

Jude Hope, Ayawaso West. 

Dear Jude, different countries have different burdens of proof under their respective legal systems. In civil law countries with inquisitorial trials, an accused, once charged before a court, is obligated to prove his innocence. 

This is not the position in common law countries, where trials are adversarial. In common law jurisdictions, an accused person is presumed innocent of the crime charged until the prosecution can lead evidence establishing that the crime was committed and that no one other than the accused committed it. 

This is what is referred to in common law countries as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The proof is an obligation required of a party to present evidence that will convince a judge of the truth of a proposition at issue in the case. 

Admittedly, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is higher than in civil cases, where the standard is the balance of probabilities. 

The law has placed the burden of proof so high that at the end of the trial, there must be no other logical explanation for the evidence other than the accused person’s guilt. 

The higher burden of proof in criminal cases is designed to protect individuals from wrongful convictions and ensure justice is served. It is a fundamental safeguard designed to balance the state's immense power with liberty.

The high burden of proof also serves as a check on the government's immense power. This is because in any criminal prosecution, there is a significant imbalance of resources between the state and the accused. The prosecution, representing the state, has access to extensive resources, including police departments, forensic labs, investigators, and substantial funds. 

This inequality implies that the state can build a case with trained personnel and financial resources that most accused persons cannot match. The high burden of proof helps levels the playing field, ensuring that the state cannot secure a conviction based on weak or 50-50 evidence, thereby protecting citizens from the risk of wrongful conviction. 

Again, in criminal cases, the stakes are higher than in civil cases. The consequences of a conviction are more severe than in civil cases.

There, a person’s freedom, reputation, and sometimes even their life is at risk, fundamentally altering their life and removing them from society.

For countries where the death penalty still exists, a person cannot be brought back to life after the death penalty is carried out.

Lastly, beyond imprisonment, a criminal record carries a permanent social stigma that can lead to significant consequences.

These can include the right to vote or hold public office. 

These considerations for criminal trials are summed up in legal parlance: it is better to set the burden of proof so high that 100 guilty people go free than to lower it and convict and sentence an innocent person.