Note to world: Alibis are only effective if they correspond to the time of accusation. To say, “The accused was playing darts with me at my house!” as a defense, when the crime for which he was being tried happened two days prior is irrelevant. How infuriating, to attempt to refute the testimony of one man, who witnessed a crime, by stating that in the whole of your experience, you never witnessed the defendant commit a trespass! Again, though a person may have done great things, none can erase the guilt of even a single act of wickedness. No judge would allow evidence of good behavior in a case determining guilt. Reasonable doubt is applied to the trial at hand, and not to the character of the criminal.
To God be all glory.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In the case of a single accuser and a single accused isn't character a valid question? Unless the single accuser is a video camera.
Thought of that. But that's a character witness, not an alibi. And character witnesses don't prove anything. I'm even a little skeptical of them.
Obviously a single accuser doesn't ever establish guilt either.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Post a Comment