Everything Is Hard

The criminal justice system is a huge machine and there are always many things that serve to stop up the cogs. History has never been kind and criminal law is based on history and is a vainglorious attempt at achieving justice.

Some of the things currently plaguing the criminal justice industry are: juror’s prejudices, (the question as to whether there is a “CSI Effect?), the glorification of forensic science in crime scene dramas, the real backlog of the system, fraud by forensic experts, and incompetence with individuals who jeopardize the process among other things.

Where to begin? Whether one wants to believe there is a “CSI Effect” or not—and there are folks who have expressed their doubts—jurors need to realize that achieving justice requires a unique balance of elements, and that nothing is foolproof; and that technology is not the be all and end all for guilt.

Prosecutors are held to a standard when they bring a charging document and defendant to court. And that standard is to find: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean that the jury must all be 100% convinced to a certainty. It means that there is sufficient evidence presented by the state that this person has committed this crime.

Now the evidence can come in a variety of forms from eyewitness identification to hard evidence or artifacts and even circumstantial evidence—such as: this person stalked the victim and had a restraining order issued against them in the past. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact. It is built upon reasoning and expecting reasonable people to figure it out. And cases in the past, Dear Reader, have been won on circumstantial evidence. Because, if there are enough things that point to guilt: bad character evidence, no alibi, previous behavior, mental illness, stressors, whatever—sometimes a pile of things put all in one place is a mountain that cannot be ignored.