That’s not quite accurate. Our justice system has never required physical evidence alone. Testimonial evidence is real evidence, and courts have long recognized that credible witness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction or judgment even without physical proof. This principle is well-established in American jurisprudence.
Courts routinely convict defendants based primarily or entirely on witness testimony in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, sexual assault, and many other crimes where physical evidence may be limited or unavailable.
The key factors are the credibility of witnesses and whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (which can include additional testimony).
Federal and state evidence rules reflect this reality. They establish standards for evaluating witness credibility and reliability, but don’t require physical evidence as a prerequisite for conviction.
The burden is on prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof can come through testimonial evidence.
While physical evidence can certainly strengthen a case, requiring it as an absolute necessity would make it impossible to prosecute many serious crimes and would represent a fundamental departure from centuries of legal precedent.
So while physical evidence can be powerful, it’s not a prerequisite. Courts weigh the credibility and corroboration of testimony carefully, and independent accounts from multiple witnesses are recognized as particularly probative.
Circumstantial evidence is credible evidence. maybe when tons of people are saying the same person raped them, he raped them and we should do something about, rather than arguing in the defense of rapists. Fuck this liberal idealism bullshit take on absolutist or nothing terms of “justice”, use your own god damned brains for once.
And yet chuds are still out in force screeching “THAT’S NOT HOW JUSTICE WORKS BECAUSE SOMETIMES WOMEN LIE AND MEN HAVE NEVER RAPED ANYONE!” This country is a fucking joke.
At least 28 women/girls have come forward, and he has been convicted of rape and bragged about taking advantage of women, his best friend ran an industry of rape, how much more do you fucking need? Stop defending a rapist.
That’s certainly proof of character, but it’s not evidence. There’s no way you can frame this that doesn’t end in being thrown out of court without something substantial that puts him there and committing the act.
Blood samples. Photographs, surveillance video, admission, etc… these things are proof.
Prior convictions won’t count as evidence. But they help with m proof of character- which can only help the prosecution, but doesn’t close a case.
Imagine if I didn’t like you and I got say, 28 people to accuse you of harassment here on lemmy. As a result, you get banned. Is that fair? Now, imagine you DID harass me and 27 other people. As a result you get banned. Is that fair?
If you’re honest, you’d answer no to the first, and yes to the second.
And that is why we don’t allow accusations to serve as proof.
Dude… you need to accept that law doesn’t abide by wishful thinking. Learn how it works and keep your emotions out of it. It’ll help you to stop accusing people who have had rape victims in their families of support rape.
…because that’s not how our justice system has worked at any point in our entire history? Are you serious? One needs actual physical evidence.
Also, why if you believe them, why did you…cut off all their faces? What the…
That’s not quite accurate. Our justice system has never required physical evidence alone. Testimonial evidence is real evidence, and courts have long recognized that credible witness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction or judgment even without physical proof. This principle is well-established in American jurisprudence.
Courts routinely convict defendants based primarily or entirely on witness testimony in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, sexual assault, and many other crimes where physical evidence may be limited or unavailable.
The key factors are the credibility of witnesses and whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (which can include additional testimony).
Federal and state evidence rules reflect this reality. They establish standards for evaluating witness credibility and reliability, but don’t require physical evidence as a prerequisite for conviction.
The burden is on prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof can come through testimonial evidence.
While physical evidence can certainly strengthen a case, requiring it as an absolute necessity would make it impossible to prosecute many serious crimes and would represent a fundamental departure from centuries of legal precedent.
So while physical evidence can be powerful, it’s not a prerequisite. Courts weigh the credibility and corroboration of testimony carefully, and independent accounts from multiple witnesses are recognized as particularly probative.
This is a rhetoric, guess who’s rhetoric?
Circumstantial evidence is credible evidence. maybe when tons of people are saying the same person raped them, he raped them and we should do something about, rather than arguing in the defense of rapists. Fuck this liberal idealism bullshit take on absolutist or nothing terms of “justice”, use your own god damned brains for once.
That would only work if the rapist bragged about raping on tape. Oh, wait…
And yet chuds are still out in force screeching “THAT’S NOT HOW JUSTICE WORKS BECAUSE SOMETIMES WOMEN LIE AND MEN HAVE NEVER RAPED ANYONE!” This country is a fucking joke.
So, there’s a thing in law that’s called “precedent”.
If you allow accusations to be accepted as legal proof of a thing, the floodgates open to allow this precedent to be applied to ALL things.
We don’t like our boss? Let’s all accuse him of rape! Boom! Prison.
We don’t like the head of our HOA? Let’s all accuse her of embezzlement! Boom! Prison!
There’s a reason proof is required. And it protects everyone. Even the bad guys.
At least 28 women/girls have come forward, and he has been convicted of rape and bragged about taking advantage of women, his best friend ran an industry of rape, how much more do you fucking need? Stop defending a rapist.
That’s certainly proof of character, but it’s not evidence. There’s no way you can frame this that doesn’t end in being thrown out of court without something substantial that puts him there and committing the act.
Blood samples. Photographs, surveillance video, admission, etc… these things are proof.
Prior convictions won’t count as evidence. But they help with m proof of character- which can only help the prosecution, but doesn’t close a case.
Imagine if I didn’t like you and I got say, 28 people to accuse you of harassment here on lemmy. As a result, you get banned. Is that fair? Now, imagine you DID harass me and 27 other people. As a result you get banned. Is that fair?
If you’re honest, you’d answer no to the first, and yes to the second.
And that is why we don’t allow accusations to serve as proof.
Maybe read the link I posted and stop defending an obvious and convict able rapist.
Maybe they to learn the smallest iota of law.
Johnnie Cochran would be proud of you.
Dude… you need to accept that law doesn’t abide by wishful thinking. Learn how it works and keep your emotions out of it. It’ll help you to stop accusing people who have had rape victims in their families of support rape.
Be better than this.