Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Neither of those links works for me; they deliver "page not found" messages.

Ironic, considering the topic of this thread.

They quote lawyers answering the question of whether or not testimony alone is enough to get a conviction. Under our current system, it is, for now. What our resident brick walls won't understand, is that's changing. Being that our system is based upon case law and precedent, yes, testimony can get you tossed in the jug for decades and even cost you your life. The vastly more important question that is being asked in this thread, and in our judicial system is "Should it?" After all, our constitution sets the requisite evidence for a guilty conviction for treason at two reliable witnesses. On the other hand, the number of cases where testimony is the primary motivator for a guilty verdict later being overturned by physical evidence keeps growing and growing. Judges are beginning to instruct juries on the failings of testimony as evidence. Jurors are asking why there is no/so little physical evidence. Even if RR is right and the last is a by-product of television shows, good! Precedent and common law do not take into account shifts in our ability to find and use physical evidence. Fortunately, precedent can change and while it is a slow process, it's doing so now.

I have stated repeatedly (though the brick walls keep conveniently "forgetting") that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence. They just don't like the fact that I don't believe it's sufficient on it's own.

I hope I live to see the day when testimony, by itself, cannot lead to a conviction. In an age where blood spatter from a blunt trauma head wound can be used to determine if the perpetrator is left- or right-handed, I believe we're already there and just waiting for the courts to catch up.

I agree, that the more important question is should it? (and stated so in the OP). If the question is just is it? At least concerning the U.S. that is an easy debate to win; although some seem to not want to admit these facts. I do agree, that in a matter of some consequence, that a single point of evidence is most often not going to be enough for me to change my mind. I'm going to look for other evidence whether it be corroborating physical evidence or other independent testimony. The same also applies with most forensic evidence. DNA only gives you only a little bit of information from which to infer a conclusion, and I would be very hesitant to come to a conclusion based on that alone in most every case.

I can respect, that we are going to have a difference of opinion to some extent with how to handle the issues with testimony. Personally, I think that given your reasons you are throwing out the bathwater with the baby to some extent. But I am more concerned with those with the more extreme positions or inconsistent reasoning. They are working towards reforms within the judicial system. And I agree with those that I have seen. However I have not seen any proposals similar to the claims I am seeing here. They mostly deal with the problems with witness identification of a stranger (and perhaps a reminder that even when certain, the witness may be mistaken on some details). Which is the issues, that I see in the studies. Of a secondary concern of mine, is that people put too much on forensic science, ignoring or de-rating testimony and ignoring possible flaws or mistakes within the forensic evidence.