Dude, what are you talking about. Juries literally only ascertain whether the evidence presented proves guilt of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
They do zero justification of anything, let alone "justification beyond a reasonable doubt", whatever that means. Have you been in a jury or ever read jury instructions?
That is not how affirmative defenses work. The jury still deliberates whether he committed murder. An affirmative defense is essentially “yeah, that’s murder, but these circumstances make it reasonable, so it’s not murder - it’s self defense”.
You don’t “deem it legal beyond a reasonable doubt”. The jury deliberates and finds that it’s not murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, due to the reasonable doubt that self-defense was necessary. If one, single juror thinks “hmm, that seems like self-defense to me” that’s a doubt. That’s what the self-defense affirmative defense pertains to. They aren’t comparing it to beyond a reasonable doubt. Affirmative defenses simply mean that you have to cast a shadow of a doubt and if the charge cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge is to be dismissed - it’s literally in favor of the defendant.
-52
u/[deleted] Nov 24 '21
[deleted]