0
Why isn't circumstantial evidence enough to convict a criminal?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Becase all evidence must be factual, proveable, and able to be examined by the defense.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
The word circumstantial in a sentence?
The evidence was circumstantial and not enough to prove any guilt.
Does circumstantial evidence constitute for reasonable grounds to arrest someone under UK law?
Circumstantial evidence is definitely enough to arrest someone - a person is arrested not just for questioning, but also to preserve other evidence, like forensics. Circumstantial evidence might not be enough for actual charges to be made, but the arrest might yield more concrete evidence.
Is word of mouth enough enough evidence to convict someone in a drug conspiracy?
YesAnother View: No, not directly. "Word of mouth" may be enough to bring drug trafficking to the attention of law enforcement, or lead their investigtion in the right direction, but the evidence that is collected and used to convict the defendant(s) must be collected in accordance with the law and the rules of evidence.
Can DNA on a cigarette at the scene of a robberey and a persons passed record be enough to convict a person?
No, it's not enough evidence to convict someone. You know that they were there, and you can definitely consider them a suspect, but you can't make a definite conviction.
Is a picture of a felon holding a gun without a firing pin enough evidence to convict him?
That is up to the police.
Can an criminal be released if there is not enough evidence to go on?
Technically yes, but only if there is no more evidence to go on.
Where may you find evidence?
There is a law of exchange. When two things come in contact with each other, they are said to exchange the material. You have to see for the same. Also that, you can not see, what you do not know. The expert will be able to collect the circumstantial evidence from the spot of the crime. The hardcore criminal also leaves sufficient evidence to catch him. You have to be a keen observer to find the evidence. The criminal has almost always left, enough evidences to incriminate him. What seems unimportant to you may be very important to the forensic expert. That is not necessary to collect 'All' the evidences left by the criminal. That is not possible and not required also.
How much circumstantial evidence is required to convert a conspiracy theory to a conspiracy fact?
The standards of rational thought (which is what we use in the Western civilizations) is generally speaking, "A preponderance of the evidence."Circumstantial evidence is indeed used in rational thought to help create an understanding, inform answers, and build hypothesis which are then used to establish fact.What this means in plain English is that despite that absolute proof of something may not exist, having enough compelling circumstantial evidence about something is pretty convincing to a rational person.When there is enough circumstantial evidence present and no other reasonable explanation exists, then what we're left with is a genuine theory for how something works or occurred.The keys here are:1. A lot of evidence, and the evidence needs to be credible.2. The circumstantial evidence that is present needs to all make sense and generally point toward the same conclusion.3. The evidence must be credible. If at any stage of the investigation the evidence seems to be concocted, misinterpreted, or falsified then it is exponentially more difficult to compel others to accept the rest of the circumstantial evidence regardless of how legitimate it may be. Tainted evidence can very quickly and easily undermine any attempt to substantiate conspiratorial claims.4. The vast majority of the evidence must point towards the same conclusion.5. That conclusion must stand the test of reason (Eg: "Does this make sense?")6. There must be no other reasonable explanation available that could also explain the evidence.If these criteria are met, then by and large the circumstantial evidence can, and usually will, be enough to compel most people to look twice at the issue and bring about further study on the topic.
If not seen doing it can you still be charged?
Of course, you can be arrested if there is enough circumstantial evidence, or if some other evidence makes you a likely suspect such as fingerprints or some of that CSI stuff like DNA, or anything else that links you to the crime.
What is an example sentence for the word evidence?
The police arrested suspects, but they did not have any hard evidence.
Whos accountable when a criminal case lacks evidence?
It depends on WHO says it lacks evidence.The defense attorney is ALWAYS going to claim that the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to convict their client.If the judge dismisses the case due to lack of evidence then the prosecutor didn't build a proper foundation for their case. In the end it comes down to the prosecutor who decides if they have enough evidence to proceed with prosecution or not.If a prosecutor decides that law enforcement failed to present them with enough to work with they will Nolle Prossea case before it ever even gets to court.
If you were arrested for being a christian would there be enough evidence to convict you?
Yes, because I would have to swear on a Bible to tell the truth and when asked if I believe God is who He says He is and Christ is who He says He is, I'd have to tell the truth. I would, in essence, convict myself.
