The typical standard of proof with which most of us are familiar in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I have always presumed that this means an attempt to make the probability of convicting an innocent person (Type I errors) small, while accepting that a much higher probability that guilty people will go free (a Type II error).
In Russian criminal cases, the standard of proof is much lower; Type II errors (freeing guilty defendants) are frowned upon (registration required).
“Judges think of themselves as soldiers in the front line fighting crime,” said Sergei Tsirkun, who was a prosecutor in Moscow for 10 years and in that time never lost a case. “A judge is not going to pass an acquittal unless he is absolutely, 100 percent confident that someone is innocent. If he has the slightest suspicion that someone might be guilty, he will find them guilty even if he has to ignore problems with the evidence.”
In fact, judges who appear to be too lenient are removed from office.
In Russia, the conviction rate in criminal cases heard by judges is around 99 percent, according to the administrative arm of the country’s Supreme Court. The rate has persisted since the early 1950s, the last years of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, when the work of judges and prosecutors was automatically reviewed if a defendant was acquitted.
The situation appears to be changing, but slowly and painfully.
Mark Steyn has this assessment of George Bush’s recent trip to Europe (thanks to Jack): [A]t the end what’s changed? Will the United States sign on to Kyoto? No. Will the United States join the International Criminal Court? No. Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran? No. Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, the president also found time to cast his eye upon Europe’s internal affairs. As he told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, ”We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands.”
Not much for appeasement, is he?
Mark Steyn has this assessment of George Bush’s recent trip to Europe (thanks to Jack): [A]t the end what’s changed? Will the United States sign on to Kyoto? No. Will the United States join the International Criminal Court? No. Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran? No. Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, the president also found time to cast his eye upon Europe’s internal affairs. As he told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, ”We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands.”
Not much for appeasement, is he?
Mark Steyn has this assessment of George Bush’s recent trip to Europe (thanks to Jack): [A]t the end what’s changed? Will the United States sign on to Kyoto? No. Will the United States join the International Criminal Court? No. Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran? No. Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, the president also found time to cast his eye upon Europe’s internal affairs. As he told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, ”We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands.”
Not much for appeasement, is he?
That’s what Canada’s Prime Minister has recently decided (reg. req’d.) in an attempt to assuage the Canadian Nationalists. His pronouncement led to this sarcastic quip by Stockwell Day, opposition foreign affairs critic:
Stockwell Day, the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs critic, laughed off Martin’s demand that Washington would have to alert Ottawa before taking out an incoming missile. “These missiles are coming in at 4 kilometers ( 2.5 miles) a second, and if the president calls the 1-800 line and gets: `Press 1 if you want English, press 2 if you want French, press 0 if nobody’s there …’ I mean, it’s crazy.”
How silly is silly? Oh well. Appearances are important.
Thanks to JC for the pointer.
That’s what Canada’s Prime Minister has recently decided (reg. req’d.) in an attempt to assuage the Canadian Nationalists. His pronouncement led to this sarcastic quip by Stockwell Day, opposition foreign affairs critic:
Stockwell Day, the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs critic, laughed off Martin’s demand that Washington would have to alert Ottawa before taking out an incoming missile. “These missiles are coming in at 4 kilometers ( 2.5 miles) a second, and if the president calls the 1-800 line and gets: `Press 1 if you want English, press 2 if you want French, press 0 if nobody’s there …’ I mean, it’s crazy.”
How silly is silly? Oh well. Appearances are important.
Thanks to JC for the pointer.
That’s what Canada’s Prime Minister has recently decided (reg. req’d.) in an attempt to assuage the Canadian Nationalists. His pronouncement led to this sarcastic quip by Stockwell Day, opposition foreign affairs critic:
Stockwell Day, the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs critic, laughed off Martin’s demand that Washington would have to alert Ottawa before taking out an incoming missile. “These missiles are coming in at 4 kilometers ( 2.5 miles) a second, and if the president calls the 1-800 line and gets: `Press 1 if you want English, press 2 if you want French, press 0 if nobody’s there …’ I mean, it’s crazy.”
How silly is silly? Oh well. Appearances are important.
Thanks to JC for the pointer.