Pros And Cons Of Legal Burden Of Proof

Circumstantial evidence is probably one of the biggest ethical concerns when people are being convicted of crimes. Circumstantial evidence is: “Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute”. (Dictionay.com, 2010). Many

To convict an individual of a criminal offence, the prosecution must be able to prove to the Jury or Magistrate that the individual is criminally responsible. This is achieved by proving the Mens Rea (guilty mind) and Actus Reus (guilty act) of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

Still sometimes, prosecutors might be persuaded that they have the correct respondent and a totally precise charge with respect to what crime(s) he or she carried out, but secure a conviction might be flawed. This obviously is valuable for the two sides to mastermind a determination of the issue without either side taking the risk that the body of evidence may conflict with them if it somehow managed to go to trial.

compromises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of charges; it is

Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that applies to our judicial system in modern times; however, when the play Doubt by John Patrick Stanley was written this phrase did not always apply. The play is a parable that makes you think about how gossip and rumors can cause havoc and potentially ruin someone’s career. In the play the rumors that are flying are rumors about whether or not Father Flynn is innocent or guilty to the crime of molesting a young boy named Donald Muller. Critics still argue whether he was innocent or guilty to the crime today, and no answer is known. However, based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt: A Parable, one could conclude that Father Flynn is innocent due to the fact that he had reasonable evidence

A prosecutor must show the judge or jury that there is no reasonable doubt of your guilt.

not of any said crime, but the true measure of guilt or innocence is only as

A few years ago my brother was accused of murder. He was locked up for 7 years for something he didn’t do. After a full 7 years and some months another crime was committed. Once they took DNA it had matched the crime my brother was convicted of. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

The responsibility of the jury in criminal and civil cases is to “determine questions of fact” and apply law as set out by the judge and then, with these facts and evidence, come up with a verdict.

Maryland in 1963 resulted in a landmark decision that “is perhaps one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions to ever impact the criminal justice system” (Rothlein, 2007). In Brady v. Maryland, the petitioner, Brady, was a co-defendant in a murder trial. During discovery, the prosecution withheld from the defense counsel the statement where the other co-defendant in the case, Boblit, admitted to the actual killing. Without the admission of this exculpatory statement, the court found Brady guilty. The assertion of this case is that the prosecution cannot withhold evidence that is favorable to an accused where the evidence can possibly lead to a finding of innocent. The decision in this case “held that a prosecutor violates the Due Process Clause when he fails to disclose material evidence favorable to the accused” (Hochman, 1996). This resulted in the Brady

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

Following such protocol could help in cases where classifying a person’s guilt is based on fact finding by way of fair and honest legal procedures instead of presenting facts alone. Because the rights listed in the Constitution are not simple, accountability and liability must be present for criminal justice officials and authorities. Equality and uniformity should have a place in the justice process.

In today’s society there are rules that define evidence pertaining to a defendant’s trial. These rules are defined as the “The Rules of Evidence” or “The Law of Evidence.” These rules create a safe and orderly environment, promote efficiency, and enhance the quality of evidence that pertain to all criminal trials. These rules restrict what a jury can and cannot hear or see, details of the law, and the importance of the effective performance of the law enforcement officer. Americans are well aware of the rules that govern evidence; but what are they, what do they mean, how do they apply to each case, and how are they broken down.

In an imaginary world the law would always give the correct results but in a real world it’s the other way. When they don’t which way do they tend to err? Which way do we want to err? We want the law to err on the side of acquitting guilty people rather than convicting ones. It is generally accepted that the price of a fair Criminal Justice System will be acquittal on a technicality of those who have committed criminal offences or because of a failure of evidence, where as conviction of the innocent is