I would argue that the Nesson is right in saying that the Blue Bus evidence could not and should not support a guilty verdict in a criminal trial because of the principles of a criminal trial: presumption of innocent and state’s burden of proof. In other words, if the truth is obscure, that means that the prosecution has not completely dealt with their responsibility of proving the truth. In the Blue Bus case, the only evidence the prosecution uses is the fact that the company owns and operates 80 percent of the buses along the route where the accident occurred. The fact only means that the company has more possibility of having caused the accident than any other company: it never proves that it was the company that caused the accident. Therefore, the truth about who really caused the accident is obscure because the prosecution could not suggest enough evidences. The defendant, the Blue Bus Company, should not have any disadvantages caused by the failure of the prosecution and the defendant must be found innocent.
One reason why the burden of proof in a criminal case must be higher than the burden in a civil case is the different characteristics of the two types of trials. In a civil action, the parties’ private profits are problems and the aim is to resolve disputes in a just manner. One consequence is that if there is an agreement among the parties about a fact, the fact should be regarded as the true even if the fact is actually not true. In other words, the trial does not have to examine the truth of the matter which the parties would not like to bring into a issue. Another consequence is that the proofs have to be convincing so that the jury and the judge makes a final decision.
On the other hand, in a criminal case, individual rights and human dignity are problems because criminal law is about crimes and punishments. For example, imprisonment restricts personal liberties and criminal records have continuous effects on people’s lives. One crucial...