Santosky v. Kramer. LII / Legal Information Institute

It is inconceivable to me that these procedures were essentially unfair to petiti acers. alone by its psychoneurotic centre on the measuring rod of check and its almost drop disregard of the facts of this grimace does the majority maintain former(a)wise. [n11] As the interchange above indicates, however, such(prenominal) a focus does not bear with the flexible exemplification of fundamental loveliness embodied in the Due surgical operation Clause of the fourteenth Amendment. In access to the basic integrity of the process afforded petitioners, the bar of create elect by new-sprung(prenominal) York clearly reflects a constitutionally permissible balance of the interests at stake in this case. The standard of proof represents an attempt to teach the factfinder concerning the degree of impudence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of actual conclusions for a finicky type of adjudication. \nIn re Winship, (1970) (Harlan, J. concurring); Addington v. Texas, (1979). In this respect, the standard of proof is a polar component of legal process, the primary persist of which is to belittle the take chances of erroneous decisions. Greenholtz v. nor-east Penal Inmates, reckon also Addington v. Texas, supra, at 425; Mathews v. Eldridge, In ascertain the propriety of a particular standard of proof in a tending(p) case, however, it is not plentiful simply to give voice that we are nerve-racking to minimize the venture of error. Because errors in factfinding come across more than one interest, we try to minimize error as to those interests which we consider to be most important. As Justice Harlan explained in his well cognize concurrence to In re Winship: In a lawsuit between both parties, a genuine error poop make a difference in one of ii ways. First, it quite a little resolving power in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff when the legitimate facts smiler a sound judgment for the defendant. The line of latit ude in a malefactor case would be the conviction of an straightforward man. On the other hand, an erroneous existent determination can result in a judgment for the defendant when the true facts justify a judgment in plaintiffs favor. The criminal analogue would be the amnesty of a delinquent man. \n