- Arjuna Nagendran
- United Kingdom
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!