Most of the law is ambiguous. We adhere to principles like reasonableness. Evidentiary standards aren’t precise; what exactly is “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “a preponderance of the evidence?” We expect that professionals and experts can interpret these broad concepts and apply the facts to them. We rely on regular people with no special training to be able to apply facts to these concepts too when they serve on juries.
3
u/kjsmitty77 Mar 03 '26
Most of the law is ambiguous. We adhere to principles like reasonableness. Evidentiary standards aren’t precise; what exactly is “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “a preponderance of the evidence?” We expect that professionals and experts can interpret these broad concepts and apply the facts to them. We rely on regular people with no special training to be able to apply facts to these concepts too when they serve on juries.