Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
Proves my point profusely.
|
No where near proves your point.
Why? Because everyone thinks that there's always this huge amount of scientific evidence that makes the case a slam dunk, when in fact a large amount of cases are built on "circumstantial" evidence.
What is circumstantial evidence:
Quote:
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
|
Then there is eyewitness testimony *which has proved to be unreliable. (
http://www.truthinjustice.org/lawstory.htm )
Not to mention, you are asking some of the most retarded people on this planet to make decisions about the life of another individual.
Look at the Simpson trial, with all the DNA evidence they had, and the guy is running free...there is an old joke that goes something like this...
I don't want to be convicted by a group of people who weren't smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.