Essay On Circumstantial Evidence

Does all evidences can be used to convict a person? Circumstantial evidence is an indirect evidence that relies on connection with a particular case, but can’t be used as a proving alone. People have different thought of should circumstantial evidence can be use to convict a person. In my opinion, circumstantial evidence should never use for declaration of guilt because of the following reason. First, it is not credible. Second, It does not contain any or non scientific analysis. Last but not least, Because of circumstantial evidence, many innocent people are punished.

To start with, circumstantial evidence does not contain any scientific analysis. For example, in the Ted talks, Francisco Carrillo was convicted of a murder case. Science has shown that people only have the ability to see an object in three feet during the night of the murder. The murderer is in a moving car that is more than three feet away from the victim, there is no way that they can clearly see the murderer’s face. This case was overturned after Francisco Carrillo had served twenty years in prison (Fraser). Another example is
For example, in the Brian Banks case, he has been convicted only based on Gibson’s testimony, there was no other evidence indirect or direct has founded. Because of that , he’s conviction is vacated after he served six years in the prison (Possley 1). Another example is from the Ted talks. The victim’s family has been asked to choose the person he saw as the murderer from total six suspicion. They choose the picture with the darkest lighting because the day of murder is at a dark night. Reconstructing memories are a memory that is not accurate, and been influenced by various objects or people. It does not mean that the Victim’s family is lying, but they had been influenced by police officers, and each other, to identify the killer (Fraser). Of course, circumstantial evidence is unbelievable, even there are