Assignment task: The government bears a high burden of proof at a criminal trial. Prosecutors must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person committed a specific act (usually with a specific level of intent) which constitutes a crime within that jurisdiction. This level of proof does not mean that the prosecution's case must be airtight; the evidence does not need to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The burden does mean, however, that there can be a substantial amount of evidence against the accused but still result in a not guilty verdict if a "reasonable" doubt is left at the end of the government's case.
Is this tough burden a good idea? Do we want to let people go free when we have clear and convincing evidence against them? Why or why not? How would you change the burden?
Theoretically, at least, the defendant does not have to say or explain anything during the criminal justice process. Is it also a good idea for only the prosecution to have a burden of proof? What would some of the common sense implications be if we compelled a defendant to testify or give statements?