Write 150 wrod response to bold question below, no title page, cite, and reference
As you know, the prosecution has the burden to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is called the "burden of proof." The defense, however, has no burden the other way. In other words, they do not have to prove a person is innocent. They can merely poke holes in the prosecution's case, show weaknesses in the proof, etc. In fact, they defense never has to put on a single witness if they do no want to.
Why do you think our system is set up this way? Is this burden too high for any prosecutor to reach? What do the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean to you? What if you have some doubt, or a little - can you still find a person guilty? How much doubt is too much to convict?