I plan on posting in other relevant subs as well. When a judge disallows potential evidence as being more punitive than probative, how is that a thing? If there is proof or a fact that could help determine a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, why would you ever not let that into evidence? “Too punitive”, isn’t that the point?
In: Other
The point if court is supposed to be finding if the person did a crime not just if someone is a general “bad guy”. If someone is on trial for murder you can’t just bring up the guy on trial raped a bunch of little girls if it’s not related, even if he did. That kid raping guy is definitely bad but that might Have zero to do with if he killed the specific guy the trial is about. Trials would suck if every one was just finding the most bad guy to send to jail instead of being about the crime they are about
Latest Answers