If you witnessed a heinous crime, would you volunteer as a court witness?

Answer 1

Yes, I would. I worked for the Superior Court of Santa Cruz for awhile, including with the much-loved Judge Black. And I know that the most important thing in any criminal trial is an eyewitness with sufficient intelligence to separate what they actually saw and heard from what they interpreted of what they saw and heard. Counts even more than physical evidence, which can often be explained away.

You might think it takes courage to speak out against a horrible criminal and fear retribution. But how could you live with yourself if you let him go free because you were afraid to speak up? And the legal system is relatively good (not infallible, of course) at protecting valuable witnesses.

Answer 2

Yes, it would be my duty as a citizen.
It is odd though, that they de-value eye-witness testimony because, in order to save time and effort for the police, they take statements of witnesses just after the event. It is well established that as part of our fight-or-flight mechanism, adrenalin is also a temporary amnesiac, used to block out mental shock and allow flight - that is how "Bambi" responds correctly by running off after his mother is shot, as it were.
Since it takes 12 hours or more to process out of the system and for people to be able to properly access their memories of anything exciting enough to elicit an adrenalin response, eye-witness accounts would correlate better if taken 12 to 24 hours after the event. Authorities are concerned that it would also allow time for someone to "adjust" the witnesses memory for them, but mostly it is just about convenience - it would be expensive to track down witnesses the next day. But as a result, few eye-witness accounts at the scene agree with each other, so they are considered weak evidence at times or it can look as if people have altered their recollection (which they have - they have corrected it).
Hmmm - just my observation on witness testimony.

Answer 3

I would demand to be a witness in the trial. I don't care about reprocessions or inconveniense... If I saw it and know what happened, I will be there . Hopfully to explain why I eliminated the rotten rat that did the heinous act. But if he's still with us, I want to be sure he is put away.

Answer 4

Sure would.

I got called up for jury duty one time for a murder case. Some mexican shot some other mexican over drugs. Of course he was professing his innocence. 8-)
So I had to fill out this questionaire about what I thought about the death penalty. I told the prosecutor I had no problems with the death penalty and I'd be there 100 % for the jury. They were loving me at this point.
But them I got a phonecall stating the mexican had confessed and there would be no trial. Drats, I was wanting to see how this whole thing played out. The experience.

Answer 5

Yes

Answer 6

Yes.televised and newspaper crimie is so prevalent that we have developed a tough skinned cynicism to it. I believe that the emotional toll of seeing and being part and parcel of a solution would move me to do so.

Answer 7

It would depend on the crime. If I saw a child stealing candy I would just let him go. But crimes like assault, rape, robbing, beating, stealing, carjacking, murder, etc done by anyone teenage and older yeah I would testify against the offender.

Answer 8

Yes.

Answer 9

why not ,if i did not they would be found not gulity and be set
free so they could continue to do the violent things they do to
other people .so yes i would tell the court every thing i witine
ssed them doing.

Answer 10

Oh yes especially for something big like abuse for an example.