Should criminals be convicted on circumstantial evidence (yes) or beyond a reasonable doubt (no)?

  • Criminals convicted on cricumstantial evidence or beyond resonable doubt?

    I believe that if people are to be convicted they should be convicted based on the circumstances. I mean who has done something without a reason for doing it. There is always a reason as to why things were done either good or bad. If you think that people dont have reasons for what they do and certain circumstance didnt help influnce their decsions you probably ignore the real world.

  • No, mere circumstantial evidence may allow for another explanation

    A single piece of circumstantial evidence is not enough to
    convict someone, because it is not conclusive proof. In a United States court,
    it takes several pieces of circumstantial evidence, all corroborating one
    another, to convict someone. This is because circumstantial evidence may suggest
    guilt, but cannot conclusively prove it. A fingerprint may mean someone was at
    a murder scene, for example, but he may have been there to deliver a package. Therefore,
    more circumstantial evidence must show that he had no package, and that he
    bought a gun that day. Otherwise substantial doubt will remain.

  • Putting an innocent man in jail is worse than letting guilty go free

    The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is used to put a very high bar on the government before they may take away a person's liberty. It is better to let a guilty man go free than it is to imprison an innocent man. By lowering that standard we are risking putting more innocent people in jail

  • It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Criminals should be convicted only when it is beyond a reasonable doubt. There are so many crimes committed that have circumstantial evidence connected to it, that if we were to convict in those cases, we would have prisons full of innocent people. We really need to make sure that only guilty parties get convicted.

  • Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

    I do not believe criminals should be convicted on circumstantial evidence because it is not factual enough to prove that they committed the crime. When you convict people on circumstantial evidence there is a high probability that people are being false convicted. This causes a lot of problems in justice because it simply leads to a lot of appeals. I believe the ideal of beyond a reasonable doubt should remain an important cornerstone of the American justice system.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.