In addition to viewing our world through Reality, Biblical and Judicial lenses we can achieve additional verification through viewing our world through a judicial lens.

Wikipedia defines the burden of proof used to indict people for breaking the law include preponderance of evidence, a minimum burden of proof for some judicial proceedings; Clear and Convincing Evidence for other types of proceedings and Beyond Reasonable Doubt as the highest level of proof for the most serious crimes. Below are those levels of proof.

Preponderance of the Evidence

Preponderance of the Evidence (American English), also known as balance of probabilities (British English), is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money.

The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. In other words, the standard is satisfied if there is a greater than fifty percent chance that the proposition is true.

This is a far lower burden than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the threshold a prosecutor must meet at any proceeding criminal.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Clear and Convincing Evidence is a higher level of burden of persuasion than “preponderance of the evidence,” but less than “beyond reasonable doubt.”

Clear and Convincing Proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality. In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions (i.e. preponderance of the evidence), which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings, and criminal proceedings and when considering aggravating circumstances in criminal proceedings. It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one’s own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

Conclusion

Based upon the evidence we presented in the Reality Lens, Biblical Lens and the Scientific Lens pages, we have also met the burden of proof required for Judicial scrutiny.