Beyond a reasonable doubt

[Mauser]

Beyond reasonable doubt, fra Wikipedia:

This is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system and is the highest level of burden of persuasion. This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. If the doubt that is raised does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.

'Hevet over enhver tvil' passer dermed ikke helt. Det kan være tvil, men ikke så mye at det ville ha påvirket en normalt fornuftig persons oppfatning av saken.

[allium]

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Mauser, her.

'Hevet over enhver tvil' passer dermed ikke helt. Det kan være tvil, men ikke så mye at det ville ha påvirket en normalt fornuftig persons oppfatning av saken.

Men det fanger man opp hvis man legger til "rimelig".

[Storm]

Tusen takk for gode svar, da tror jeg at jeg forstår bedre. Rimelig/reasonable er sentralt i uttrykket da, forstår jeg.

[Kanina]

Her til lands er det vel dessuten forskjell på graden av tvil i straffesaker og i sivile erstatningssaker. Dette har medført at en person som har blitt frifunnet for drap har blitt idømt erstatningsansvar.