[DannyBee]

"The system is best served by not being allowed to randomly put whomever in jail for whatever [1]."

They aren't randomly putting whomeever. They are putting a guy who admitted to a crime, and is in fact, guilty, in jail. And not even in jail. My only objection was to the trial, not a sentencing hearing. They are welcome to argue whatever factors/mitigations/excuses they want at that hearing.

You still haven't answered what the trial buys you there.

The rest is a discussion about why we have an adversarial system for the case where guilt is not objectively known. I don't at all disagree with that part (though i agree both sides are blameworthy for various things and in various ways).

IE "Giving a good defence is supposed to ensure that when an accused is convicted they are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt."

But he admitted he did it, and actually did it. You objectively know they did it. The "reasonable doubt" standard is a subjective standard, which is standing in for the lack of objective knowledge. Here, we have that objective knowledge. So what exactly is the subjective standard buying you in that case, and why does that serve the end goal, rather than the current means, of the system.

[krichman]

How can you claim we objectively know that someone is guilty or even that a crime was committed at all? Even the lawyer hearing the confession cannot possibly assert beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true with no other evidence.

So what's the scientific way? Maybe present evidence to an unaligned third decider that the crime happened and that the most likely explanation is that the accused committed the crime?

[DannyBee]

I'm sorry, are you to claim in the second paragraph that the way our system works in front of a jury is a scientific way of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

If so, I invite you to visit the court room more.

As for the first, you can objectively know if the person is guilty in a number of ways. For example, maybe they admit it, plus there is authenticated video + eyewitness + whatever you like evidence that they did it. It happens plenty of times.

If your answer is "nothing is enough to objectively know", then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Also, note that "reasonable doubt" is a very modern standard. It's not clear why you seem to be holding it up as the "only" or "right" standard.

[krichman]

> For example, maybe they admit it, plus there is authenticated video + eyewitness + whatever you like evidence that they did it.

Then that would be good enough to convince a jury the accused is guilty. You can't allow the defence to just claim "well, he did it", as you appear to desire, because that's ripe for abuse.