Should a 'gut feeling' be enough for a jury to convict someone?

Regardless of evidence, you just have this gut feeling the defendant is guilty, should that be enough to convict?

  • Yes
    5% (2)3% (1)4% (3)Vote
  • No
    74% (28)95% (35)84% (63)Vote
  • It depends (explain)
    21% (8)2% (1)12% (9)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
11|13

Most Helpful Girl

What Girls Said 10

  • God, I hope this was not a real question. I fear for society more than I already do if you are asking this genuinely.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Going with your gut doesn't warrant conviction, but it does warrant a talk about why you feel this way.

    1|1
    0|0
  • If the person is gloating "you have no facts" smiling, and rubbing hands together and has a weak alibi-I mean, maybe.
    Sue me, but maybe.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Always always use evidence. Never go with a gut feeling, evidence is far more accurate than evidence.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Of course not. It's supposed to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt". A gut feeling does not qualify under that definition.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Innocent until proven guilty, right?

    1|0
    0|0
  • Of course not

    0|0
    0|0
  • Hey hey lemme get some inspiration credits here :p Anyways no ^^

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, it's not enough. Gut feelings need to be proven.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No but it does warrent a discussion so you can figure out why you have that feeling.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 13

  • It has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt
    Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of Anglo-Saxon countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[1]

    Generally, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.

    If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. A related idea is Blackstone's formulation "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

    0|0
    0|0
  • Absolutely not. The standard of proof that the prosecution bears isn't based on appealing to the gut feelings of the jurors.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It should not be but it happened often.

    0|0
    0|0
  • NO WAY. can't simmer the zimmer.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I've been on jury duty on several occasions. If the situation were reversed I wouldn't want 12 peoples' guts deciding my fate while they ignore the evidence, so I don't do that either.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Unless your Gibbs, no.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No thats stupid, I mean you can't use your gut feeling to judge a crime without any evidence, but usually your gut feeling is right, but there is always that small chance it's wrong.

    0|0
    0|0
  • That's why there are 12 people on a jury. So someone doesn't get convicted because one person has indigestion.

    0|0
    1|0
  • No thats just plain stupid.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm sure some people feel that way. Not everyone is impartial.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No that's ridiculous

    0|0
    0|0
  • I would hate to be convicted on a gut feeling that turned into a fart

    0|0
    0|0
  • yeh its good enough

    0|0
    0|0
    • 3mo

      Why?

    • 3mo


      Some people are more intuitive than others.
      That means the evidence may not be enough to tell the whole story, and may also be proven inconclusive. Therefore without strong conviction to make proper judgements looking on all angles you could be convicting an innocent person. Remember that you only have 1 shot. So unless a person gets a lesser sentence their lives are in your hands.

Loading...