Alan Dershowitz Explains the Casey Anthony Verdict

He does so rather too well, in my opinion (h/t: Had Enough Therapy?):

Even if it is "likely" or "probable" that a defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither likely nor probable satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result—acquittal in such a case—may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.

I say "rather too well" because it brings up that yawning need for justice, and then puts it aside. It names "reasonable doubt" to be a daunting standard, and then fails to tell us just what that standard is. It begs the question: what is "reasonable" doubt?

We say we it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to incarcerate one innocent man. But is that what the system does? Or does it let ten guilty men who can afford lawyers go free, and incarcerate ten innocent poor men? And if it does, then whom does the system really serve?

I bet Alan Dershowitz knows, even if he ain't sayin'.