Understanding Proof

Gregg has an interesting discussion going on about illegal immigration, and one of the problems is that so many people don;t understand the differing levels of proof.  Here is something that I cobbled together, and hope that it will fit as formatted:

Presumption of innocence only exists in the courtroom.  The State is allowed to proceed on the basis of probable cause, which is enough to get you into the court.  I try to demonstrate it graphically using the jury bar, and I will try to do it here starting with unknown and going to known.  This is not strictly linear, except that preponderance of the evidence is considered to be 50% plus a smidge.




---  Total Unknown  Don't know, never can know.
|
|
|
--- Particularized suspicion, Enough for a cop to ask for your ID, look into something that could be suspicious.
|
|
|
--- Probable Cause, enough to arrest, get into court.  All that the state has proven prior to trial
|
|
|
---  Preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not.  Enough to take your money
|
|
|
--- Clear and Convincing - Amount of evidence for DPHHS to take your kids away.
|
|
|
--- Beyond a reasonable doubt - Enough to take your freedom, or your life in a capital case.
|
|
--- Total known  No question, no doubt, no way, no how.