So our disagreement is based on the definition of the word "proof". I have defined what I mean by that word a few times. And I am giving the legal definition that is appropriate in this kind of situation. If you don't understand this, I can't make you understand. Others perhaps will understand and that is good enough for me.
Have a good day.
Your disagreement is over procedure.
@Revoltingest is suggesting a person can be found “not guilty” because of reasonable doubt created in the jurors mind for whatever reason. States laws can vary but some states require a higher standard when asserting an affirmative defense. The model penal code show a standard that
@Revoltingest favors in their jury instruction :
The defendant has offered evidence of having acted in self-defense. Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in reasonable self-defense.
You can compare that with the model penal code for justification:
The defendant contends that [his] [her] conduct was justified. Justification legally excuses the crime charged.
The defendant must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded that the things the defendant seeks to prove are more probably true than not true. This is a lesser burden of proof than the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of [specify crime charged].
A defendant’s conduct was justified only if at the time of the crime charged:
1. the defendant was under an unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury;
2. the defendant did not recklessly place [himself] [herself] in a situation where [he] [she] would be forced to engage in criminal conduct;
3. the defendant had no reasonable legal alternative; and
4. there was a direct causal relationship between the conduct and avoiding the threatened harm.
If you find that each of these things has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, you must find the defendant not guilty.
As you can see, some affirmative defenses require the defendant to meet a standard of proof while others do not. Different states have different standards. SCOTUS has upheld affirmative defense requirements, so some states are or could be exactly as you have suggested, while others are exactly as
@Revoltingest suggested. But, I think there is a hidden point in
@Revoltingest statement. I think he is suggesting that if the reasonable doubt standard is challenged even in the minds of the jury, they have the authority to find the defendant not guilty regardless of standards of proof and jury instructions.