you're getting confused between proof of guilt which is what's necessary for a conviction in court and a prima facie case which is what's necessary for a prosecution.
[…] Just because a prosecutor *can* bring a case to trial doesn't mean they objectively *should* if the case is built on evidence not likely to result in a conviction. So, yes, the standard is exactly "is the evidence credible enough to result in a conviction?" Otherwise, why is it even being brought to trial?
Not directed to any of you in particular. Just wondering if the concept of "probable cause" of the US criminal law, has an equivalent here or in international law that could be relevant for the procedures of a case like this.
probable cause, [Wikipedia]. Says that the best-known definition of probable cause is: — "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".
Also, another common definition is: — "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".
"Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. [/Wikipedia]
you seem to be equating "investigation" with "interrogating the suspect"
No I'm drawing a distinction between three things - inquest, investigation and interrogation. An inquest is required by law whenever someone dies in suspicious circumstances as bin Laden did. A formal investigation, potentially useful in non fatal cases or where there hasn't been an inquest, is a process of inquiry to assemble evidence of a suspected illegality. An interrogation occurs when a person is taken into custody and questioned by law enforcement officers such as the police. The ICC as a court of last resort is concerned with situations where states or suspects can't or don't co-operate so it may issue a warrant of arrest where one or more of the three procedures did not take place.
If the victims of OBL heard you talk about his being killed without any fair trial being involved your life would vanish fast KM.Get it through your thick skull KM the US did a great favor by getting rid of a tyrant and a murderer.GOD BLESS OBAMA AND THE NAVY SEALS.
Well, a person can choose whether to co-operate with an inquiry but he can be compelled by subpeona to give evidence to an inquest so it's more effective. Moreover the coroner is uniquely qualified to ascertain the cause of death and can reach a verdict of 'unlawful killing' which would be more than enough reason to commence a prosecution. Any evidence that could put to an inquiry can be put before the coroner so a separate process would seem otiose.
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Any evidence that could put to an inquiry can be put before the coroner so a separate process would seem otiose.
It sounds like coroners' inquests have a far broader scope over there than here. An inquest here is held to determine cause, time and manner of death -- when a medical examination alone is insufficient to establish such facts -- and limits the scope to those subjects. Establishing such things as motive, opportunity, events leading up to a killing, events afterward or even potential suspects is not the Coroner's core purpose, although obviously evidence relevant to those may also be gathered. That's why an inquest here is usually conducted in concert with a law enforcement investigation, which has a broader range of inquiry ...
In any case, when you're calling for the arrest and trial of arguably the most powerful person on the planet for fairly heinous crimes, I'd think you'd want the most thorough gathering of evidence possible even if that involved redundant processes ...
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.