[ken5050]

Earlier on this thread, someone mentioned the “CSI effect”..people today expect to see hard, visual evidence..absent it, they won’t convict..

[CitizenM]

The problem is that people interpret the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" to just mean...a doubt, ANY doubt.

They forget the word REASONABLE. That is where the emphasis should be placed. Not just on the word doubt. If you apply that word, REASONABLE, then people like Casey, and OJ, would have been found guilty. Because the evidence presented, although not fully conclusive in that it did not place the defendant in the act of murder, certainly was reasonably indicative of the defendant's involvement. There could be doubt...but the circumstantial evidence is more reasonable in showing the defendant's role of murder.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Earlier on this thread, someone mentioned the “CSI effect”..people today expect to see hard, visual evidence..absent it, they won’t convict..

Before CSI, it was Perry Mason, LA Law, Law & Order, etc. Because of television, circumstantial evidence is now considered bad evidence. Even when there's a truckload of corroborating evidence to go along with it.

Justice, like government, depends on an informed, intelligent citizenry. We don't have that anymore.

[JeffAtlanta]

Earlier on this thread, someone mentioned the “CSI effect”..people today expect to see hard, visual evidence..absent it, they won’t convict..

And you see this as a bad thing?