2007-09-27 11:19:32 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
They want to make an arrest when they have a case that is strong enough to get a conviction. If they rush it and go to trial with out a strong case and the guy is acquitted - they can't arrest him later and try him for the same charge (double jeopardy) - even if there is slam dunk evidence against him they find later - even if he stood in the middle of the street and yelled at the top of his lungs "I did it".
So - as much as it sucks - be patient. Let them build a strong case they can win.
2007-09-27 12:06:30 · answer #1 · answered by Boots 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason is, as other posters said, that the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries now have the CSI syndrome, where they want mountains of fiber, hair, dust and DNA evidence. Once you reach a certain point in the process
what is known as double jeopardy attaches, which means that if you bring a case and lose, the person can never be tried again for that offense, even if you get 100% proof, so the police are cautious about making the arrest. And by the way it is probably the district attorney who is saying that the evidence is not strong enough.
2007-09-27 17:04:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're talking a load of tripe for want of a ruder word. If the police had reasonable suspicion the suspect would be arrested and if necessary bailed while further enquiries were carried out. If there is enough evidence even though the sh*tbag will still go "No reply" (at his money grabbing professionally embarrassed defence lawyers advice) he will be charged and remanded.
I'm sure if the local community knew who did this they would be the first to deliver him to the police tarred and feathered with a sign round his scrawny criminal neck. Huzzah!
2007-09-27 11:47:11 · answer #3 · answered by disco 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Knowing something and proving something beyond a reasonable doubt are not the same thing. If they jump the gun and go to trial and lose, then the killer gets away and cannot be tried again even if they find the evidence later.
I am a criminal defense attorney and can tell you than my job is soooo much easier when the prosecution and police are sloppy.
2007-09-27 11:26:06 · answer #4 · answered by hensleyclaw 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you would rather they go ahead and arrest them and try them with incomplete evidence. OK Then you will have nothing to complain about when they get found not guilty and can never be tried for that crime again.
Have a nice day
2007-09-27 13:33:35 · answer #5 · answered by Charlie Fingers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋