This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is circumstantial evidence enough for conviction?
The talk tagged marks an interesting point - we are increasingly realising the fallibility in being able to trust our own memories - this is particularly disturbing in terms of the reliability we place on witness accounts.
The question is.. if we have to accept that the human memory does employ reconstructive memory, even just some of the time, is circumstantial evidence really enough to convict someone?
Or does this demand that, in pursuit of innocent until proven guilty, we must
move to a system where more than circumstantial evidence is required to succesfully prove guilt?
Interested for peoples' thoughts on this one!
Topics:
federal law human rights justice
Brandon Baum
Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact without the need to draw an inference of another fact. For example, eyewitness testimony is direct evidence. It is a person saying "that's the man who robbed me." No inference is required, you either trust it or you don't. Likewise, a confession is direct evidence. The evidence that convicted Mr. Carrillo in the case under discussion was direct evidence -- eyewitnesses. Had there been gunshot residue on Mr. Carrillo's hands shortly after the crime, or the correct make and caliber ammunition hidden under his mattress, that would have been circumstantial evidence.
I realize the original question assumes that the term "circumstantial evidence" means some sort of weaker or less reliable evidence. But to be precise, I think the correct terminology is important.
Henry Woeltjen 10+
However, I do agree that we should pay close attention to the kind of circumstance we derive evidence from.
Richard Krooman 50+
If in some way a ton of circumstantial evidence can single out a single person you could say that 'beyond any doubt' he committed the crime. However untill then you cannot.
So in theory yes you could convict someone based on circumstantial evidence however it would require some really strong circumstances for that to happen.
Rick Ryan 10+
And that's the problem. Define "reasonable". The witnesses in the referenced TED talk were all probably "sure" and "beyond doubt" that what they reported was correct and factual. They were wrong.
The issue is balancing the use of circumstantial evidence to ensure the doubt it raises remains reasonable, regardless of how the people presenting the evidence may believe it is reasonable or even factual.
Richard Krooman 50+
John Moonstroller 30+
Add to this the fact someone is going around town hijacking little girls around the age of 13 and their bodies are being found in another part of the state and the profile is the same, but the evidence file is empty. It's all circumstantial really.
As a citizen what is your responsibility?
Rick Ryan 10+
"Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials...Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials."
To me, the question revolves around the quantity and QUALITY of the circumstantial evidence. The video by Scott Frasier indicates that not ALL circumstantial evidence can be trusted, based on limitations of Humans to "collect" and "interpret" that evidence and then present it as a true "fact".
But as long as there may be crimes commited where no direct evidence is available, we have to rely on a system that will allow QUALITY circumstantial evidence to be used to identify criminal acts.
That is the whole issue. It's not a perfect system. Our goal should be not to ELIMINATE circumstantial evidence, but to make sure it is not ABUSED to the detriment of convicting an innocent person.
Linda Taylor 50+
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/drew-peterson-verdict_n_1862245.html
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
A person of good health and sound mind is held captive in a room. The room has absolutely nothing, no furniture, no belongings of the person, just nothing. There is a single door of the room. Another person enters the room and leaves it after couple of minutes.
Observation: The first person is found dead, his neck broken.
What will be the conclusion of the circumstances of his death? Please note that there is no eye witness of the event of this person's death.
Arjuna Nagendran
Of course it could also be suicide, breaking his neck in the process?
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Gail . 50+
But I do think that there has to be a LOT of, or irrefutable, evidence before conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Arjuna Nagendran
Isn't that the nature of circumstantial evidence though? - ultimately it is all potentially flawed.
So we're then assuming that if you get enough unknowns, they are likely enough to be a known? Pretty tough to get behind if you're the guy that goes down for all those years!
John Smith 30+
John Smith 30+