If You Cannot Be Proved Guilty For a Crime, Does That Make You Innocent?

[Skillet]

Say, for example if you murder someone, but the only evidence they would have is the body itself cannot be found.. Do you think it's still acceptable to charge person on verbal and background evidence rather than physical? Or should you be innocent until they can prove physical evidence?



This one's for you, Princess.

 

[Kasynlie]

I don't believe anyone should be prosecuted without any firm evidence of a murder by the suspect.

 

[Skillet]

What about verbal.. Like one or two people say you committed a crime. Do you think verbal is enough evidence is any situation?

 

[Kasynlie]

Like I said. Without firm evidence, no-one should be prosecuted.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

What about verbal.. Like one or two people say you committed a crime. Do you think verbal is enough evidence is any situation?

Eye witness's can be evidence/

 

[sabrina]

Eye witness's can be evidence/

Not reliable evidence though. Just part of a big group of evidence.



Eye witness testimony is usually more useful for pointing the police in the right direction to find suspects in the first place, but not so much for proving that someone is guilty.



Why is it not reliable? All the evidence of this we need is the Salem witch trials. There were tons of eye witness testimonies in every case, but little other evidence and lots of innocent human beings died.

 

[Princess]

Eye witnesses are evidence. But, as far as American law goes, you must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I were to murder someone for example, and was foolish enough to do it in front of 2 credible witnesses..Nebulous and Skillet.

They could then go to the police and say We saw her murder someone

However--if that was the only evidence. No blood spatter, no DNA evidence, no body, no nothing else. If is up to the jury, of course, but no that--in most cases--isn't enough evidence to convict of a crime.

Does that make me innocent--no. It just shows that the weight of the evidence wasn't enough to be convicted.



Mel Ignatow was aquitted of murdering his girlfriend Brenda Sue Schaffer because it just couldn't be proven. No body, no blood, no evidence aside from maybe a piece of jewlery (I'm going on memory here, not wikipedia) that was pawned--something like that. Anyhow--long story short--he was aquitted because there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. Went to prison on other charges and while he was in prison--evidence was found that he did indeed murder his former girlfriend.... On that instant it was a day late and a dollar short--they couldn't re-try him..double jeopardy and all that.

 

[xneseyx]

if eye witnesses were enough to prosecute people, then half the country would be in jail. everyone would be able to send their like ex bf/gf to jail over he said/she said bullsh*t! and not even them. it could be like, oh, that strange dude just ran in to me. I'm gonna go tell a cop that I saw him do blankety blankety whatever (come up with something) and we'd all be in jail.

 

[Skillet]

if eye witnesses were enough to prosecute people, then half the country would be in jail. everyone would be able to send their like ex bf/gf to jail over he said/she said bullsh*t! and not even them. it could be like, oh, that strange dude just ran in to me. I'm gonna go tell a cop that I saw him do blankety blankety whatever (come up with something) and we'd all be in jail.

But it isn't. It is still up to the courts to decide. Eye testimony can be brought in the court as evidence.



I'm going to quote the importance of eyewitnesses:

Jurors treat eyewitness identification as compelling evidence in both civil and criminal trials. The strength of eyewitness testimony is demonstrated by a study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) that recorded verdicts in a mock trial. Two separate sets of the jurors heard evidence differing only by the presence or absence of an eyewitness. With no eyewitness, only 18% of jurors gave guilty verdicts. Addition of an eyewitness identification increased the proportion of guilty verdicts to 72%. Moreover, even when the identification was impeached, the guilty rate was still 68%. Several other studies have similarly found that juries tend to base their decision on a confident eyewitness identification even when other factors (such as poor visibility or bias) question its validity

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html





Although you are right, it can cause problems if that is the only evidence people rely on.

 

[xneseyx]

but if eyewitnesses are all they have, then they shouldn't be charged as guilty.

 

[Skillet]

but if eyewitnesses are all they have, then they shouldn't be charged as guilty.

What if there are multiple sourced eyewitnesses? Say a fight breaks up, and five people witnesses the fight. One man was beat unconsious. Are you saying those few men spectating the fight from a distance where they were of no help in time should not be reliable enough?

 

[xneseyx]

I guess... I was mostly thinking that if there was only one eyewitness it wouldn't be very reliable.

 

[Skillet]

Well, lets use one. Say the man got beat up. The other man (attacker) had no allabi and a man from a few dozen meters away saw this.



Not good enough evidence?





In some cases, one voice may be enough.

 

[xneseyx]

it always depends on what the crime was! and if somebody got the hell beat out of him, he'd have bruises! and you spelt alibi wrong...

 

[Skillet]

it always depends on what the crime was! and if somebody got the hell beat out of him, he'd have bruises! and you spelt alibi wrong...

Grammar police?

 

[xneseyx]

lol that is hilarious! and it's not like I'm after you about everything... BRAYDEN!

 

[civilwarrocks]

Legally you can't go to prison if they can't physically prove you are guilty. Evidence by word of mouth is hearsay & unless you admit to the crime, you are innocent.

 

[civilwarrocks]

I wish that were true. My husband was convicted of a crime he did not commit and spent 3 years in prison. The INjustice system in America is one biased, corrupt, fallible, inept and frequently just flat-out WRONG organization. I know whereof I speak. I've dealt with the Michigan INjustice system for over 4 years. Pray to whatever God you believe in that you never get swept into the system.

Well I'm an agnostic so I'm not getting on my knees any time soon. My statement was meant to say that they are not supposed to put a person in prison without physical evidence. Of course the system, as with any other system, is in some cases corrupted.