Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A Balanced Retributive Account

wrongs, one will not see this asymmetry, which is the mistake 304. Id. at 242. 305. One might think that victims, if anyone, have a right to ensure that their wrongdoer is punished. But see infra Part IV.C. 306. See Epps, supra note 15, at 1142 & n.370; Reiman & van den Haag, supra note 21, at 242–43. 307. See Christopher, supra note 299, at 913 (suggesting that retributivism should settle on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard). 308. There is no obvious reason why the SOP cannot take into account other sources of the disvalue of punishing the innocent. It simply cannot take into account any instrumental benefits of punishing the innocent. 432 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 76 Reiman’s critics make. But if one recognizes that one wrong is measured by a concrete harm, and the other not, then one can see the retributive solution