Apart from an alleged offender confessing his crime, what evidence/circumstances qualifies him as guilty in the court of law?

I would think that one of the major glitches in confirming guilt in the past, was the lack of witnesses at the scene of a crime.

Now we have an overwhelming amount of phone cam footage , incriminating statements immortalised in texts or emails along with character witnesses.

Why is there still so much doubt regarding alleged crimes?

What qualifies an alleged offender as guilty these days, short of admission?

Maybe the alleged offender's fingerprints all over the crime scene with no other's present?

Hummm beyond proof or admission or evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt nothing does...

Even if you know one is guilty with out those things then it is up to each to judge as they feel fit...

If they admit to a crime and they give certain details facts that actually ties them to the crime that is all it would take..

Just like the lady that sent bombs to Obama at one time and to another.. It took evidence in order to link her to the packages.. This was just on tv this morning the evidence that may convict her is cat hair... Yes I said cat hair on the devices think it was some tape she used had cat hairs on the tape with DNA ect they have linked it to one of her cats...

So sometimes it is a small thing like cat hair that may convict a person...I'm sure they found more things but that was one of the main factors..

But unless they found more then that she could get off, if the cat at any time went outside even that could be disputed due to who knows where else that cat might call home..

that's true Poetry writer

Fingerprints are a good qualification unless its a crime of words ...

Makes sense Kristi. DNA evidence like finger prints, hair strands etc do count, but look how easily evidence like that cold be overlooked in favor of other "reasonable doubts " that can be manipulated by the right Lawyer eg the mere fit of a glove circa OJ Simpson's case

OJ Simpson left his DNA and it did not help.

Imagine if we lived in a world where law was handled by robots programmed by an AI.
There are a good many scenarios depicted in science fiction.

How many times would we be guilty if the evidence were the only factor used to determine guilt? Does the evidence prove what happened or what we think happened based on the evidence?

Makes me think of a drama film I watched again recently.

12 Angry Men (1957)
The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.
Seriously dramatic performances of all the actors but the main theme of the film was
Just how valid is an evidence or witness to the actual truth of the crime?
Is the judgement based on the validity of the evidence or the predisposition of those who consider it?

As forensic science advances, the evidence is more precisely determined. Still, there is a degree of implied guilt associated with many forensic determinations.

The hair on the tape belongs to the same cat she has at her residence. That can be scientifically proven.
When and how that hair got on the tape cannot.
It is just as valid an argument to say that the cat did it.
Based on that evidence, the cat did do it.

The higher in importance a crime, the more scientific evidence needed to make a judgement. To the point that supreme judgements try to be an exact science.

Imagine if every crime were as rigorously prosecuted?
When you go to traffic court, you present your evidence and the judge quickly determines your guilt or innocence. That judge may base the verdict on personal validations. There may be a pressure to increase revenue from fines. Maybe they are looking to create or maintain a reputation.
I'm just saying, if it happens in some cases, it could be happening in other cases.

I've read science fiction stories where every case is judged by a machine. Evidence can damn an innocent person and release a criminal.

you can thank the LAPD for that... About as incompetent as a bunch of monkeys collecting evidence...

there is no real qualifier, its all perception of those on the jury. perception of how 'likely' it is that something is true of the person they are observing and how likely it is that those testifying are honest and genuine.

they say if there is means, motive, and opportunity

legally, the only real qualifier is consensus on the grounds that are explained to them in their jury instructions.

The problem with DNA is it only proves that either a person was present someplace or that someone who was around that person at some point was present

because DNA can be transferred from place to place

and mere presence isn't enough to have guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' particularly if it is any place that the accused is known to frequent.

I think the weight of evidence sometimes qualifies

EXACTLY

This is my fear Tom. It's beginning to dawn on me how little weight evidence seems to hold in a court of law when prosecuting a crime. It depresses the hell out of me :(

...And the fact that celebrities are seldom subjected to the full fist of the law for their offenses

Actus reus, mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt, and attendant circumstances, usually.
Different aspects weigh different amounts in consideration.
Depends on the crime or offense.
Civil? Criminal? Federal? State? Local? Misdemeanor? Felony?
Exactly which law was violated and where?
And what is the exact wording and terminology of the law(s)/statute(s) alleged to be broken?


Because law (in the U.S. at least, generally) is predicated on "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
And "Innocent until proven guilty."
Which pushes the burden of proof primarily on prosecutors to prove someone did something, rather than defenders having to prove they didn't do something, or prove someone else did it.
Better for the innocent to go in with doubt, rather already tried and goalseek.

Being found not guilty doesn't mean someone didn't do it. Only that the prosecutor didn't sufficiently provide everything necessary that the law dictates is necessary in order for the government to have authority to release its power against the alleged perpetrator.

Other than that, I don't know from whose perspective you mean "doubt."
The judge? Jury? Prosecutor? Defendant? Family members on one side or the other? Victim? Or just the general population? People that only watch Law and Order on t.v. and believe that's an accurate portrayal of the legal system? People whose only exposure to the legal system is via television and media like Yahoo!news or court t.v. or a movie on Netflix?


A costly (in time and money) process.

Also, do you understand the difference between admission and plea?


That's not all that true.
A judge can overrule a jury.
But only towards not guilty or mistrial.
If a jury finds someone not guilty a judge can't declare them guilty, only judge a mistrial and have it potentially retried. If the jury finds someone guilty, a judge can overrule them and declare the defendant not guilty.

Not to mention the judge still has final say (generally, unless the state/law has mandatory minimums or amounts) on sentencing. Amount of jail time, how much money is awarded, etc.
So, theoretically at least, someone can be found guilty, but receive absolutely no penalties or punishments whatsoever.

I understand the feeling Peggy. I have seen trials where it appeared to me that it was or should have been a guilty verdict, as many others probably have.

But, I think evidence holds weight if the CONTEXT is relevant to the jurors examining it.

for example, as said before, it doesn't matter that someones DNA is at the park where someone was killed if it is a park at which there were plenty of reasonable explanations for their presence.

Or a home they used to live in.
Or a workplace they are employed at.

The mere presence of DNA is weighted against what it is evidence OF.
For instance, if someone is killed in a bathroom they shared with their husband.
Evidence of the husband blood in a sink, or even on the floor, may not be evidence that he is a killer and only evidence that he was bleeding in the bathroom at some point, for any number of reasons.

there is also the amount of DNA, and the source
For example : a hair, which is easily transferrable, a drop of blood which could be from a regular cut or injury, or sweat, or saliva ... there are many sources DNA comes from.

witnesses can be wrong, especially if all of a certain group look alike to them.

witnesses can lie, especially if being cut a deal or trying to protect a loved one in some way


So proving guilt is a tricky matter that is dependent upon the presuppositions of the jurors on what constitutes 'evidence',

and what that evidence means in CONTEXT,

and what type of character they perceive the suspect and witnesses and victim to have.


I would never want the job of deciding someones freedom or imprisonment or their life and death, especially when there are so many facets that have to be considered.

I would also not want to live in a country where allegation is going to mean guilt because of how 'credible' an accuser may or may not seem to be or how many people can line up and repeat the same accusation.

DNA alone will not work a lot of times, if that person is known to be around that person. And has been at their house therefore they could use that in order to explain why their prints or DNA was in the area...

It takes more then that to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt...

If one person on the jury is not convinced and they feel there is not enough evidence to convict that person then it will end up with a hung jury..

It is why a lot of times some actually get off when there is a murder without the body it is hard to prosecute them...without truly knowing that person is dead. For some will have a doubt and wonder if they could be hiding...

And this worries me Ms H, that juries can be so easily swayed by the right pupeteering of a skilful lawyer

I definitely think DNA should not be allowed to stand on its own. It should be consolidated with other evidence as well

You really think so joe? Its crazy how many criminals go free even after all the provocative DNA, cell footage and testimonies have been submitted. It's mind-boggling!