What is the Onus of Proof (and some other terms)?

[beanybagger]

I am confused about the onus of proof.

Is the onus of proof the same as the burden of proof?
What exactly is the onus of proof and burden of proof?

In criminal and civil cases, what is the standard of proof (in your own words)?Please also describe what exactly is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'on the balance of probablities'.

Thank you!

[HasibA]

-quick reply
never heard of onus of proof, but im assuming its the same as the burden of proof. It is basically who has to present the evidence to back up their claims , and is placed on the party who usually bring up the case (sorry if this is wrong, been a while)
 standard of proof is the extent to which the 'evidence' has to be proved. Beyond reasonable doubt is a 100% confirmation that the evidence is reliable and accurate , and convinces the jury/judges 100%, whereas balance of probabilities is >50% - it is proved to the extent of a 'majority vote'

sorry if i have confused, my brain is friend right now - anyone clear up any mistakes i've made-

[beanybagger]

-quick reply
never heard of onus of proof, but im assuming its the same as the burden of proof. It is basically who has to present the evidence to back up their claims , and is placed on the party who usually bring up the case (sorry if this is wrong, been a while)
 standard of proof is the extent to which the 'evidence' has to be proved. Beyond reasonable doubt is a 100% confirmation that the evidence is reliable and accurate , and convinces the jury/judges 100%, whereas balance of probabilities is >50% - it is proved to the extent of a 'majority vote'

sorry if i have confused, my brain is friend right now - anyone clear up any mistakes i've made-

Thank you!

[meganrobyn]

I am confused about the onus of proof.

Is the onus of proof the same as the burden of proof?
What exactly is the onus of proof and burden of proof?

In criminal and civil cases, what is the standard of proof (in your own words)?Please also describe what exactly is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'on the balance of probablities'.

Thank you!

I just have a few differences from the previous reply.

Firstly, they are the same thing, so that's not a problem. And except in exceptional circumstances (don't worry about those) they are placed on the party bringing the action: prosecution or plaintiff. But, with BRD, it's not 100% - it's asking you to be so convinced that the prosecution has proved the truth of their claims that you only have funny little crazy hypotheses about alternatives, but no legit questions or blank spots in the evidence. Let's say over 90% convinced. Then the jury vote is a vote of all the people who are that level convinced - you need at least 11/12 to be that convinced (or unanimous in some cases) for a guilty verdict. BoP is where you, as an individual juror, only need to be MORE convinced that the plaintiff has proved their claims than you are less convinced. Like, if you had to pick one side, you'd go with the plaintiff. Then the jury vote is how many people are that level convinced - you need at least 5/6 that level convinced (to find liable).

[HasibA]

<snip>

Thanks for correcting- beautifully articulated!

[meganrobyn]

Thanks for correcting- beautifully articulated!

Thank you! Glad you're happy with the tweaks.