When a person is suspected to have committed a crime, the police is informed and an investigation process is commenced by the police after arresting the suspect.
After the investigation, the police come to a determination as to whether the suspicion of crime can be substantiated, such that the person can be said to have committed a crime.
When a determination is made by the police that there are enough facts and evidence to support the guilt of the suspect, the police finally charge the suspect with the particular criminal offence and put before the courts for trial.
By way of education, when a person is arrested by the police on a suspicion of a crime, the person is simply a ‘Suspect’. Where the person is finally charged with a criminal offence and finally put before the court for trial, the person then becomes an ‘Accused’.
Per the law, charging someone with a criminal offence and putting him or her before the courts is a very serious matter, because the person’s freedom and liberty are potentially at stake. The law therefore requires a very strict proof of the person’s guilt, by the police or prosecution, before convicting the person of the criminal offence.
By way of education, a Prosecutor or Prosecution simply refers to the person or body conducting criminal cases on behalf of the state. For example, the Police Service, Economic and Organised Crime Officer (EOCO), Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the Attorney-General (AG), and so on.
Again, to convict means to declare, by the courts, that a person is guilty of the criminal offence; but where a person is declared to be innocent, that is to acquit. To sentence means to send a person to jail for a period of time after being convicted of a crime. It stands to reason that where a person is acquitted, the person cannot be sentenced.
The greatest burden is on the prosecution to establish by evidence, strongly enough to convince the court that the accused person is guilty and that there is no doubt or reasonable doubt about his or her guilt. This means that for prosecution to succeed, the court must not have any doubt or reasonable doubt that the accused person did not commit the offence.
Thus, once there is a doubt or a reasonable doubt that the accused may or may not have been the person who committed the crime, or a doubt or reasonable doubt that at the time the offence was committed, the accused may or may not have been around, then the accused person must be released to go home free.
In conclusion, the police does not deal with a small matter when they try to establish the guilt of a person. A proof beyond reasonable doubt is very distinct from a proof beyond doubt. So in essence the law requires that at the end of a criminal trial, the court:
1. List all the doubts created in the mind of the court suggesting that the person is not guilty but innocent;
2. Separate mere doubts from reasonable doubts;
3. Determine whether the evidence led by the prosecution is beyond all the reasonable doubts or just beyond the mere doubts;
4. Convict the person if the evidence led by the prosecution is beyond all the reasonable doubts or that the evidence shows that the person is guilty despite some reasonable doubts in the mind of the court;
5. Acquit or free the person if the evidence led by the prosecution is not beyond all the reasonable doubts (although the evidence may be beyond the mere doubts) or that the evidence does not show that the person is guilty after taking into consideration either the reasonable doubts or the mere doubts.
It worth reading. Thanks for sharing
It’s worth reading. Thanks for sharing .
It is always a pleasure
Worth reading, very educative .