Benefit of the doubt

Reader question:

Please explain this sentence: “I didn't believe him but I still gave him the benefit of the doubt.” What does “benefit of the doubt” mean exactly?

My comments:

Okay, let's see.

Let's say “he” did something or said something that got the speaker upset or angry.

Then he tried to explain the situation by making excuses or giving alibis, whatever. The speaker didn't fully believe him, but the speaker, a he or she, didn't have anything else to prove whether what he said is true or not.

So the speaker “gave him the benefit of the doubt” and let it go.

In other words, she chose to forgive him – for now.

Later on, should she be able to find out from other sources that what “he” said was not true, she could be upset or angry with him again, more upset and angry perhaps, but for the moment, she chose to let it go.

He got the “benefit” of not receiving her wrath or other punishments. The speaker gave him the so-called benefit, or favorable treatment because of doubt, or uncertainty involved in the situation.

The other thing I draw from this particular example is that the speaker is a reasonable and fair-minded person. He or she has a fair spirit. They're kind at heart because they choose to treat the speaker kindly rather than harshly while they're being doubtful of their situation either way.

Anyways, that is the approach a judge in court often takes when they don't have clear and irrefutable evidence that a crime is committed. If no such clear evidence is produced to prove an accused person of wrongdoing and in a way, as they say, beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge may give an innocent rather than guilty verdict.

In that case, the defendant who's been accused of a crime walks free on the strength of very benefit of the doubt.

It may be the right or wrong decision for the judge to have to make. Later on, new pieces of evidence may be available to prove the crime is committed beyond any reasonable doubt but for the moment, all that the judge can do is to let the accused go. That's how the legal system works, and that is as it should be if the law is the law.

Otherwise, there'd be no rule of the law.

Anyways, in our example, what “he” did to the speaker might not be serious and everything might indeed turn out to be all cool and good, but still it is very kind of the speaker to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As I said, it reflects a fair spirit and a kind heart – whether the speaker would later regret her generous decision is another matter.

All right, here are media examples of people giving or given the benefit of the doubt – perhaps correctly, perhaps not:

1. The “Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida and other states should all be repealed. At best, they are redundant. At worst, as in the Trayvon Martin killing, they are nothing but a license to kill.

Police in Sanford, Fla., cited the statute as grounds for their decision not to file charges against Martin's killer, George Zimmerman. Martin, 17, was strolling home from a convenience store, armed with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles, when Zimmerman -- a Neighborhood Watch volunteer and wannabe police officer -- spotted him and decided he looked suspicious.

Zimmerman, who is 28, happened to be armed with a handgun. He followed Martin, despite instructions from a 911 operator not to do so. They had an encounter that left Zimmerman suffering from minor injuries and Martin dead on the ground from a gunshot wound. While we don't know exactly what happened, we know that Zimmerman initiated the contact by stalking a young man who had done nothing more sinister than walk down the street wearing a hooded sweatshirt.

Police decided to release Zimmerman without charges because of the Stand Your Ground law. The relevant part of the statute says that “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked ... has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”

Zimmerman claimed self-defense, was given the benefit of the doubt required by law and was released.

This was a shocking travesty, as we now know. The “person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked” was Martin. Under the Florida law, as I read it, he had every right to feel he was in “imminent peril of death or great bodily harm” from the stranger who was following him. He had every right to confront Zimmerman -- to stand his ground -- and even to use deadly force, if necessary, to defend himself.

- Repeal the ‘Stand Your Ground' laws, DailyHerald.com, March 29, 2017.

2. Pop quiz: What's the first thing that springs to mind when you hear the term “nonprofit”?

Most people associate the phrase with good will and philanthropy like feeding the poor, helping children, or fighting disease in far-flung countries. Yet it just so happens that one of the world's largest tax free organizations is in fact the National Football League—the most successful sports franchise on the planet.

A quirk in the law classifies the NFL as tax-exempt to earn nearly $10 billion in revenues each year, while its chief pulls in a $44 million annual salary. But as the league grapples with multiple public relations crises, some say that its status as a non-profit could in fact be the source of its woes.

“We tend to assume that if you're not for profit you must be one of the good guys,” said Gregg Easterbrook, an author and sports analyst. “But in many cases the for-profits are the good guys and the not-for-profits are the ones that are getting away with something.”

Generally, nonprofits are far less regulated than the average private or publicly traded company. Experts say they are given the benefit of the doubt by regulators and the public alike, and tend to police themselves adequately.

- This ‘nonprofit' is anything but—and that may be the NFL's biggest problem, CNBC.com, February 28, 2017.

3. Golden State's Klay Thompson on Friday responded to a quote from Doc Rivers, who had previously told reporters that a team needs some “luck” to advance in the Western Conference playoffs – “Look at Golden State, they didn't have to play us or the Spurs.”

Thompson, who helped the Warriors win the title this past season, called Rivers' remarks “bitter” and went on to note how the Clippers lost to Houston after leading 3-1 in the conference semifinals, and so on.

“I was really disappointed in them because that's not how I said it,” Rivers said. “I was really surprised at how sensitive they are, but I'm giving Klay the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure it was worded wrong in the question that was asked to him. I basically say it and I say it all the time. During the conversation, I said of my (Boston Celtics) team in 2008, you've gotta have some luck, things have to go your way. You need all that.

“But I respect Golden State a hundred percent. But I was surprised at how quickly they jumped on it. To each his own.”

Can this make the rivalry bigger?

“I don't know if it can get any bigger,” Rivers said, “but I'm fine by that. Whether they likes us or we like them, doesn't matter. They're the champs and we want to be the champs.”

- Doc Rivers ‘disappointed' in Klay Thompson's reply to ‘luck' remark, Insidesocal.com, October 13, 2017.

About the author:

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.