The word of ONE person (the victim), is enough to convict someone of a sex crime; is that right?
Nevermind the Kavanaugh story on tv....
in the courtroom,
the word of ONE person can convict someone! No corroboration needed!
See, I wasn't lying!
Wait, what happened to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ???
the word of ONE person (often a child/minor) is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ????
No corroboration needed?
Does that seem consistent with our constitution's guarantee of due process?
How is that constitutional?
Granted ---- if that wasn't the case ----- no one would ever be convicted of sex crimes. because there usually aren't additional witnesses.
but ---- still --- one witness is enough?
seems like an awfully low bar for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
- BruceLv 71 year agoFavorite Answer
Can it? Yes. Is it common? No.
When it comes to he said/she said, credibility is a major factor. In the cases I've seen, a conviction only comes when one person is credible and the other does something to destroy his credibility.
- Larry CLv 71 year ago
It certainly is enough to get you arrested, and forced to spend over $ 100,000.00 for an attorney, but if you are truly innocent, you will fight back, and never accept a plea bargin, and demand that all court session be open to microphones and cameras. I have seen closed courts ignorance Supreme Court decisions to protect defendants when no one else in present, and nothing recor3ed except by the court clerk who accidentially left that out.
- linkus86Lv 71 year ago
Lets look at the facts
1. Your source is an advertisement, not an actual case.
2. The existence of the California State Statute doesn't convict offenders, juries do.
3. The law mentioned applies to minors, not all people.
4. The law mention only allows for juries to convict based upon the accusation of a singe minor under certain circumstances, it doesn't require it, thus completely constitutional,
- 1 year ago
Most trials involve only the testimony of the cop that wrote the traffic ticket.. if the jury finds the testimony sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, for any type of crime, and that testimony addresses every element of the crime, then that evidence is sufficient.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- SallyLv 71 year ago
No, that's not right, and no one has said it was. Straw man.
- FoofaLv 71 year ago
That article is about California where things are done differently than pretty much everywhere else in the county.
- 1 year ago
If you actually found a jury that would all agree and convict based on that alone, sure.
You realize this is an ad for a law firm that wants to make money off of representing people in these cases, right? I mean, they could have easily cited a case to show their point, but they didn't, wonder why?
- 1 year ago
...and yet, juries convict on that standard, so it's not an impossible thing to determine
- GypsyfishLv 71 year ago
That's a blog on a law firm's site- trying to drum up business. Here's a link to some real statistics. "Out of every 1000 rapes, 994 perpetrators will walk free." It's very hard to get a conviction on a rape charge, which is why the paranoid claims by men that they could be convicted based on a false claim is ludicrous.
- The TaxpayerLv 71 year ago
Except in real crimes like Keith Ellison, Bill Clinton, and about 10 other DNC members.