How does the idea of guilty beyond reasonable doubt protect the right of defendants?

Answer 1

The idea is that in order to punish someone for a criminal offense, and to take away their rights, the people (jury) that find him guilty should be totally sure that he did it, not just think it is probable.

In reality, most people don't understand what this means, and many attorneys are not good at explaining it, so jurors will still convict defendants when they think it is probable, but not absolute, that he is guilty.

ANOTHER VIEW: 'Reasonable Doubt' does NOT mean that ABSOLUTE and TOTAL proof must be achieved! (a virtual impossibility) It means that a REASONABLE person would infer from the evidence and testimony offered at trial, that it is HIGHLY LIKELY that the person charged DID commit the offense.

I will simply quote the legal definition:

"Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge."

See below link for citatation:

Answer 2

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean beyond ALL doubt.