Was your prior assumption that forensic evidence must exist in every case—and that if it doesn’t, then there’s no way to convince a jury of someone’s guilt?
As in, as long as I clean up really well afterward, I can pretty much do what I want?
As in, as long as I clean up really well afterward, I can pretty much do what I want?
If the argument is that forensic evidence decreases uncertainty, well, it certainly doesn’t eliminate uncertainty.
Convicting anyone of anything is a slippery slope. The only way to be truly sure is to never do it, ever.
the south is also known for putting people in prison without even having a charge. just a guilty result
There is no hard rule for physical evidence. If other evidence is enough to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, it could be very significant.
Why do you think many places would execute petty thieves? So few were caught generally speaking the punishment had to be severe.