1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
V125BC [204]
1 year ago
6

Do you think defendants should have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted? Or do you think a lesser burde

n of proof, like the preponderance of evidence in needed in civil cases, is more appropriate?
Law
1 answer:
BigorU [14]1 year ago
5 0

I think defendants should have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted is more appropriate.

<h3>Who is a Defendant?</h3>

This is referred to as the individual or group which have been accused of breaking the law and is being tried in court.

It is more appropriate for the defendants to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted because the jury will employ  the use of evidences and testimonies in other to give a verdict. This ensures fair judgement and prevent innocent from being punished unjustly.

Read more about Defendant here brainly.com/question/7315287

#SPJ1

You might be interested in
Why is documentation important at a crime scene?
zavuch27 [327]

Answer:

it can lead to admissible evidence in court of law or missed evidence can lead to a guilty person getting away with crime against persons or property.

4 0
3 years ago
2. Ano ang time signature ng awiting
koban [17]
I am guessing the answer is number three if I am correct let me know
6 0
3 years ago
Misuse of technology in a complex social problem in points​
Andru [333]

Answer:

im not sure but good luck

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
in 1945 the United States helped form what organization dedicated to preserving world Peace? A. the United Nations B. world heal
trasher [3.6K]
A. The United Nations
6 0
3 years ago
What could happen if the police ask your name and you refuse to tell them or give them a false name?
Ksivusya [100]

Answer:

go to jail

Explanation:

If you refuse a Breathalyzer test, you will most likely face serious consequences. For instance, if an officer stops you and believes you are intoxicated, and you refuse to submit to a test to determine your blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), you may risk having your license suspended or even face jail time.

While you may not be under arrest at this point, refusing a Breathalyzer may not be such a great idea as prosecutors may still base a potential DUI/DWI charge on other evidence collected at the scene, including officer observations, witness testimony, or the results of a field sobriety test. In certain jurisdictions, your refusal may be used against you in any possible trial. And some state laws distinguish between refusing a mobile Breathalyzer (which can carry a small penalty) and refusing a post-arrest blood, urine, or breath test at a police station or hospital (which can result in more severe penalties).

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Someone please help!
    11·1 answer
  • If the jury feels that a 17 year old girl looks like she is over 18, they can legally find the defendant charged with “unlawful
    8·1 answer
  • Before becoming a cabinet level department in the executive branch where was the Department of Homeland Security located?
    6·1 answer
  • what are the consequences to a silent partner in a partnership when the partnership is unable to pay off debt​
    9·2 answers
  • Uh i dont know any of these questions
    8·2 answers
  • C) Write the correct option:
    9·1 answer
  • Why do YOU think the press should be regulated?
    12·1 answer
  • Which of the following is the primary reason for using juries in trials involving serious crimes? A. It limits the effect of cor
    12·2 answers
  • Alma Tirtsche (1921)
    13·1 answer
  • At the four-way stops sign, which has the right to go first?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!