Author Question: Suppose the jury determines that the evidence presented by the prosecutors does not prove beyond a ... (Read 137 times)

Redwolflake15 · **on:** Jul 24, 2018

Suppose the jury determines that the evidence presented by the prosecutors does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. What is the difference between concluding that the defendant is innocent, and concluding that the defendant is not guilty (if any)?

Question 2

In the American judicial system, you must presume that the defendant is innocent unless there is enough evidence to conclude that he/she is guilty. What are the null and alternative hypotheses in this situation? Be sure to label which one is which.

xoxo123 · **Reply #1 on:** Jul 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS, YOU DON'T SAY YOU ACCEPT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS, YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE UNABLE TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. THAT MEANS YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY. THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM SAYING THAT THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT.

Answer to Question 2

NULL: THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT; ALTERNATIVE: THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY.