Today, I address a larger question than one about federal tax crimes. The question is whether our traditional criminal justice system for finding truth by triers of fact -- usually juries but sometimes judges -- really do it well and how much confidence can we have that they do it well. At the outset, we all recognize that no system is perfect. Our system requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- not proof beyond any doubt, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as articulated -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- suggests the possibility that some are wrongly convicted even though a jury could find that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, even the concept of what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt is uncertain, further exacerbating the possibility of a wrongful conviction. See Reasonable Doubt - What is It? (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 10/16/09), here.
View Jack Townsend's opinion in its entirety on the Federal Tax Crimes blog site.
For additional insight, explore Tax Crimes, authored by Jack Townsend and available at the LexisNexis® Store
Discover the features and benefits of the LexisNexis® Tax Center
For quality Tax & Accounting research resources, visit the LexisNexis® Store
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site