Legal debate?

Legal debate? Topic: Court case scenarios
May 25, 2019 / By Merit
Question: I have had many debates about this. The answers have went both ways. Basically the scenario goes, there is a car that had it window smashed in. The owner came back and called the police. The police found prints inside that they later matched to a person that the victim does not know. There is no other evidence beside the prints. Now, many feel this is enough to make an arrest and charge the person with crime. Others, me included, feel that the simple fact that the vehicle is in a public lot and has been there open for who knows how many hours makes the fingerprints of less value. Since the window is smashed out the inside of car is now more assessable to others. A passerby could have noticed it and touched it on the inside, someone could have scavenged through it. However, unlikely the situation might be, it is still plausible. In the past I have closed and lock doors that were mistakenly been left open in a parking lot. So if that car was involved in a crime and my prints were found should I have been arrest without hearing my side. Or what if someone noticed the car had been broken into and the doors were left open and they took it upon themselves to secure the car? It happens. Should they be arrested? So my question is do you think the presence of prints inside of a vehicle would be enough to arrest and charge, without questioning the suspect first, the suspect may have a valid reason behind the evidence, and without confirmation an arrest would not be warranted? Thanks in advanced. BTW, I know it is rare for an PD to actually take the time to lift prints from a car that was broken into. This is just a debate that I have been having for some time, and I am trying to get some other opinions on this. don, how is this common sense? To automatically assume that the prints belong to the perp would be ridiculous. They are many legitmate reasons why the print could have been left. BTW, I did not mistakenly do anything. Why would someone leave there keys under their seat and leave their door open? Now that make no sense at all. hot- I can tell you are not an legal expert or in the profession. For you to say that whomever prints that are in the vehicle did it, would be crazy. I am sure glad you are not the police, if so there would be a lot of innocent people in jail right now. don- I can agree with that. But would you consider the prints inside or on the vehicle enough evidence alone to make an arrest? Don- I do not feel the prints alone would be enough to do much with, maybe question the person, but if they decide not to talk or have a good reason behind the prints then nothing can be really done. The prints prove that they were inside the vehicle but nothing else. Without other evidence the case is dead. Molaw, so you are saying that the mere presence of the prints would be enough to arrest and charge a person even if they had a legitmate reason for the prints being there. Don't investigators have the moral obligation to make sure they have the right person? Is it fair to just lockup and send an innocent person to jail and to court for trying to help if in fact that was what they were trying to do?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Legal debate?

Leontyne Leontyne | 5 days ago
The discovery of the fingerprints of a person who had no right to be inside a vandalized car would constitute probable cause for arrest. Subsequent to that arrest, that fingerprint evidence could be adequate grounds to charge that person with at least one crime. The opportunity for that person to explain why their fingerprints were discovered would arise in court, which is the proper venue for hearing and considering evidence. However, the defendant isn't required to present any defense at all because the state bears the entire burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The jury (or judge in a bench-tried case) is charged with deciding the value of all the evidence brought forward to determine guilt or innocence. The defendant may explain the innocent reason why his prints were found in the vandalized car. However unlikely his story might seem, a jury might find doubt of his guilt is indeed reasonable, and he will be acquitted. While some discretion is necessary and warranted during a police investigation, their job is to enforce laws and gather evidence. The attorneys one each side argue the admissibility and legitimacy of evidence. The jury (or judge) determines the validity of the evidence that's admitted. This is how our legal system works.
👍 158 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Legal debate? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Court case scenarios

Leontyne Originally Answered: Help with a debate: reasons why gay marriage should be legal?
- If it is between two conceding adults, they should have the right. - They're not hurting anyone. - If they are allowed to be married/together, they can adopt more kids in need of families and homes. - If two people love each other, and live together. They're practically married anyway, so you might as well put it on paper, and let them have the legal rights too. - Marriage is a basic human right, no matter who it's between. Against Religion: - I personally do not consider homosexuality a sin, and neither do millions of other people. - If it truly is a sin, why put so much emphasis on homosexuality and not other sins? There is more in the bible against masturbation than homosexuality, but I don't see that being illegal anytime soon. - Not everyone is Christian, and people should respect others' beliefs. Including beliefs where people believe homosexuality isn't bad. - The bible was written thousands of years ago. Many of it has been lost by being tampered with by man, or simply lost in translation. How do we REALLY know homosexuality is a sin? - It's scientifically proven being gay is NOT a choice; and the God I believe in wants us to be with the person we uncontrollably fall in love with.

Jordyn Jordyn
Hmmm... I'm not an expert. It looks like circumstancial evidence. I don't think it's rare for police to lift prints. I guess the final decision would be the jury in a trial. The prints would seem to make the person a suspect.
👍 60 | 👎 -4

Georgette Georgette
It depends on where the prints were. If they were on the door, maybe a few on the seat then it is likely they secured it or something like that. But if the prints were found in places like the glove compartment or places where there may have been items of value OR in various places in the car, then it is likely that it was the perp.
👍 56 | 👎 -13

Dellma Dellma
While I am not an expert, I do believe they should at least look into seeing who the prints belong to. At the least they could find a serial burglar or something. Really, what are the chances of someone coming along and just rubbing their hands across a broken window. Lets get real. Whom ever prints they are did it, bottom line. Lock they *** up!
👍 52 | 👎 -22

Dellma Originally Answered: Why do atheists tend to do poorly in debate against their Christian friends? Case in point this debate here on the radio?
Chances68 is entirely wrong. Atheists lose debate ALL OF THE TIME. It is not because their reasoning is not sound, it is because their reasoning is not correct for debate. In a debate neither side holds a "burden of proof", but that both sides do. Atheism is a purely defensive stance. Sure you can attack the view of others, but it is a defensive stance in that since it makes no claims, even when you attack of the views of others is not logically consistent. Let em explain. In order for me to say that some moral edict of Christianity is wrong, I have to define morality in such a way as to make firm claims of right or wrong. Now obviously this can be done with secular logic like utilitarianism, humanism, or kantian logic. BUT, the problem is that these learned atheists generally hold to none of these, nor do they study them. When Dawkins is allowed in a book to posit the problems with various religions, he is not debating but critiquing. Acting as a food critic takes completely different skills than being in a cooking competition. Atheism is simply not good for debate. It is, however, an entirely defensible position. To make no claim, you place the onus entirely on the people making a claim. Just as you see here. YA is not a debate, but allows the use of the method of attacking a view, while claiming no view. It allows people to act as critics more than debaters. With a little bit of patting each other on the back and claiming intellectual superiority, atheists here can ignore the flaws in their debating style. They can ignore that they are engaging in critique and not debate. They can simply see what they consider constant victories, and not even understand that these are not victories in the slightest bit. Pretending that they were able to show most all religions wrong. That neither proves them right, nor makes all religions wrong. To claim it does is an argument from ignorance. They have successfully provided a critique. Generally, those critiques have already been made and already been refuted. And thsoe refutations have been refuted. And there are refutations of those refutations. Edit: As you said Chances68, debates are about evidence. SO produce evidence that no god exists? What? No evidence for lacking??? If I ask a Christian to produce evidence, they will. You will deny their evidence valid, BUT you will still ahve failed to produce any evidence supporting your own view. Take my deist beliefs. I am making no claim on morality, no claim on the supernatural, only a claim for the existence of a god. If we debate, then we would only debate on that one point of the existence of god. I will bring evidence. What will you bring? Now what if I added a system of morality to my view? Now we are debating two things. In this case, can may be able to convince others that their are flaws in my stated morality, but if you bring no alternative, ... well that could be a problem. Now if I brought the Bible, what will you use? There are plenty of attacks on the Bible made. BUT, I know this. Every attack on the Bible ever made also has a refutation. So I can come prepared, furhter, I can simply ask you how you define it as wrong, by what moral maxims.

If you have your own answer to the question court case scenarios, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.