2007-09-20 11:23:58 · 5 answers · asked by Lindsey F 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Culpability is often easy to determine. People judge others every day, and come up with their beliefs and opinions about whether someone is guilty or innocent.
What's difficult is to do the process in a court of law, under strict evidentiary rules, and (in the US) to a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt).
And the reason that is difficult is because, as noted above, people love to jump to conclusions about whether someone is guilty. Often based on things that are not evidence of that crime.
2007-09-20 11:42:57 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Almost all criminal offences require proof that they were committed intentionally. For example "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". So if there is no intent, there is no theft. It is very difficult to prove what was in someone's mind.
2007-09-21 07:59:30 · answer #2 · answered by Ben Gunn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2 aspects; First is uncomplicated, actus reus, the act of a criminal offense, i.e. he pulled the set off somebody died. 2nd the complicated area, mens rea, the point to dedicate the crime, particular he pulled the set off yet did he fairly propose to do it? How do you prepare it and then how do you convince a jury (a random pattern of disinterested electorate) that a killing replaced into homicide or manslaughter or purely an twist of destiny?
2016-10-19 06:07:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lack of concrete evidence.
And a well thought out cover story.
2007-09-20 11:31:21 · answer #4 · answered by Bob J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because their are so many loop holes in the system
2007-09-20 11:31:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋