Reason.com
Is Paul Shanley Guilty?
If Paul Shanley is a monster, the state didn't prove it
(Page 2 of 2)
Intense emotion sways jurors, who believe someone must be lying. The jury sees the accused sitting coolly at the defense table while a wracked accuser tearfully recites tales of horror. But "lying isn't the issue," McNally says. The accuser may believe every word he says and still be entirely wrong. Courts now know this.
Under the circumstances, it is hard to blame the jury for deciding as it did. That is why the Shanley case should never have reached a jury without some corroborating evidence of a crime. "In British courts," says Brewin, "these kinds of allegations would not really get anywhere, unless there was independent evidence to support them."
For the most part, that is true in the United States, too. "Shanley is a bizarre aberration," Barden says. The case is a throwback, out of touch with today's best law and science. Shanley may be a monster. But the standard for a criminal conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the state never met it.
© Copyright 2005 National Journal
Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal and a frequent contributor to Reason. This article was originally published by National Journal.
More Articles by Jonathan Rauch
- Two Americas, Growing Apart, Jonathan Rauch, May 10, 2012
- Is There Any Hope For This Man?, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Virginia Postrel, Brink Lindsey, Richard Epstein, Bruce Bartlett, Jonathan Rauch & Deirdre McCloskey, October 29, 2008
- The Right Kind of Gun Rights, Jonathan Rauch, March 19, 2008
Related Articles (Crime, Politics)
- Scott Walker Turns Up the Heat on Flawed Milwaukee Crime Stats, Ryan Ekvall & M.D. Kittle, May 25, 2012
- Separating Church and State Money, Ronald Bailey, May 24, 2012
- Is the GOP an Echo or a Choice?, Tim Cavanaugh, May 22, 2012
- Jerry Brown's Broken Budget, Steven Greenhut, May 18, 2012
- How Pat Buchanan Conquered America, Brian Doherty, May 17, 2012
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
paddy|3.22.12 @ 7:19PM|#
You supposition is wrong in so many ways. The prosecutor elicited convincing evidence of opportunity and the "victim" gave convincing eyewitness testimony. As to motive..well your own article indicated that.