Testimony is Evidence

[Thumpalumpacus]

I see no reason to regard this hearsay as factual. Can you link to that q&a page so that I can read for myself what was written?

Sure... it was in the OP (and I think I posted it another time) Also posted in the other thread.

In addition at least in the U.S. this is the case, as I previously posted a lawyers Q&A site, as evidence for testimony here and here

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

Ironic, considering the topic of this thread.

[Astonished]

Sure... it was in the OP (and I think I posted it another time) Also posted in the other thread.

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

Ironic, considering the topic of this thread.

I was able to see the second one an hour or so ago and it was basically a youtube comments section. Nothing confirmed to be factual. But when a source is coming from a .com address, that's par for the course.

[RoadRunner79]

Sure... it was in the OP (and I think I posted it another time) Also posted in the other thread.

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

Ironic, considering the topic of this thread.

Sorry about that.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-o...24282.html
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-i...17488.html

[Ravenshire]

Sure... it was in the OP (and I think I posted it another time) Also posted in the other thread.

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.

[Amarok]

Read the second link my assessment agrees with astonished and Gentle man . More of the same . And as gentlemen has pointed out the system is changing and rightly so.

So ultimately his evidence is a bunch of stories and a outdated picture of the law .

[Ravenshire]

You know, another huge factor that needs to be minimized, if it can't be eliminated, is the politicization of convictions. From the Governor to the DA (in those jurisdictions where the DA is elected) they all play on convictions in their "tough on crime" stumping. This leads to enormous pressure among the police departments as well as the DA's offices to, not just solve crimes, but to get convictions.

When all is said and done, I have to agree with William Blackstone. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Considering the number of wrongful convictions we've gotten from cases decided primarily by testimony, I don't see how anyone who agrees with his statement can argue in favor of testimony being anything other than corroborating evidence.

I know this is where RR is going to trot out his tired what ifs and declare that physical evidence can point to the wrong person too, but if physical evidence had as bad a track record as testimony, he'd be able to point out actual cases instead of blogs and allegory.

[SteveII]

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.

In case I am one of the brick walls, I want to point out that your first sentence "that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence" is simply true by definition. Your second sentence is just a matter of opinion since 1) you do not have a logical defeater for and 2) there are good reasons for someone to hold the opposing view that testimony can be sufficient on it's own. Notice I did not say the opposing view is that testimony is sufficient--because no one really holds that position.

[Astonished]

Read the second link my assessment agrees with astonished and Gentle man . More of the same . And as gentlemen has pointed out the system is changing and rightly so.

So ultimately his evidence is a bunch of stories and a outdated picture of the law .

Because the law does not equate to morality as has to be pointed out all too often on here. It evolves, sometimes painfully slowly, sometimes in the wrong directions, but there's always an actual rational and reasonable goal to strive for. If it takes dragging credulous and overzealous morons kicking and screaming into the enlightened age, so be it.

[Ravenshire]

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.

In case I am one of the brick walls, I want to point out that your first sentence "that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence" is simply true by definition. Your second sentence is just a matter of opinion since 1) you do not have a logical defeater for and 2) there are good reasons for someone to hold the opposing view that testimony can be sufficient on it's own. Notice I did not say the opposing view is that testimony is sufficient--because no one really holds that position.

Well, I've supplied evidence for my stance. Perhaps you could do the same? Not a logical argument as you so love to do, but actual evidence.

[Astonished]

In case I am one of the brick walls, I want to point out that your first sentence "that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence" is simply true by definition. Your second sentence is just a matter of opinion since 1) you do not have a logical defeater for and 2) there are good reasons for someone to hold the opposing view that testimony can be sufficient on it's own. Notice I did not say the opposing view is that testimony is sufficient--because no one really holds that position.

Well, I've supplied evidence for my stance. Perhaps you could do the same? Not a logical argument as you so love to do, but actual evidence.

If one of these 'good reasons' is because there's no other evidence, someone better get tasered right between the eyes for that bullshit.