Tough Burden Of Proof In A Criminal Trial

I personally think the tough burden of proof used in a criminal trial is a good idea. The primary reason is because it guarantees that the specific person has performed the crime they are being accused of without hestation to act upon it. Anytime a person is accused of a crime, the state becomes responsible for proving his or her guilt in court.The responsibility of proving the case relies fully on the prosecutor. The prosecutor must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her.During a criminal trial the prosecutors must take into account the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment that forbids a criminal defendant from being convicted on any bulk of eveidence less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must also prove you intended to commit the offense. Untimately, If the prosecution fails to prove either of these things, you cannot be convicted of the crime. …show more content…
If the prosecturo provides a strong solid case with convincing evidence beyond a resonable doubt then the jury will find the individual guilty. I would change the burden of proof from being such a high level of importantance in a criminal trial. The prosecutors have to provide a sustainal amount of evidence to receive a guilty verdict, which can be hard to provide at times. If the prosecutor leaves any doubt that the evidence is true and admissible , then it can work in the defendants favor. The defendant can argue that the prosecution has failed to prove their case. This results in the defendant being found innoccent,when in actually they are guilty but the prosecutors failed at providing a solid case due to lack of evidence. I think that if a small amout of evidence proves that the individual has committed the crime with or without intent , then the judge and jury should implement a guilty