In modern times, proving that someone has committed an illegal act has been a challenging issue. While many feel that materials like photos and videos have enhanced the verification of a crime, there are others who opine that courts need more evidence to end up with such a decision. This essay examines both views and explains why I agree with the latter statement.
Supporters of the optical data argue that they ease the process of an offense. Indeed, visual stuff would ameliorate the judges who cannot assure about a rulebreaker, mainly for crimes that can be recorded, like rape, handlifting or robbery. Photos of the criminal area, for instance, or video of the offender the moment that rapes a girl, would definitely show the person, the objects used or even the whole criminal scene. Clearly, If hidden or security cameras visualized a crime step by step, it would become more convenient for the court to make a decision.
Even though there are benefits of the digital evidence, the opponents of them, myself included, believe that they are not sufficient in all cases. Undoubtedly, there are crimes which cannot be videotaped, and therefore cannot be proved by images, even if we live in a digital culture. Take the white-collar crimes as an example; these types of illegal acts are financially motivated, committed by businesses or governmental professionals, and include cybercrime, terrorism and state-corporate crime. In cases like these, the visual material should be replaced by documentary evidence and testimonials in order to prove someone's guilt. Obviously, economic crimes could never be displayed in images.
In conclusion, although the audiovisual evidence could provide judges with the information concerning a crime scene, I am of the belief that they are not adequate in all crimes, since there are ones which cannot be caught by a camera
In modern times, proving that someone has committed an illegal act has been a challenging issue. While
many feel
that materials like photos and videos have enhanced the verification of a
crime
, there are others who opine that courts need more
evidence
to
end
up with such a decision. This essay examines both views and
explains
why I
agree
with the latter statement.
Supporters of the optical data argue that they
ease
the process of an offense.
Indeed
, visual stuff would ameliorate the judges who cannot assure about a
rulebreaker
,
mainly
for
crimes
that can
be recorded
, like rape,
handlifting
or robbery. Photos of the criminal area,
for instance
, or video of the offender the moment that rapes a girl, would definitely
show
the person, the objects
used
or even the whole criminal scene.
Clearly
, If hidden or security cameras visualized a
crime
step by step, it would become more convenient for the court to
make
a decision.
Even though
there are benefits of the digital
evidence
, the opponents of them, myself included, believe that they are not sufficient in all cases.
Undoubtedly
, there are
crimes
which cannot
be videotaped
, and
therefore
cannot
be proved
by images, even if we
live
in a digital culture. Take the white-collar
crimes
as an example; these types of illegal acts are
financially
motivated, committed by businesses or governmental professionals, and include cybercrime, terrorism and state-corporate
crime
. In cases like these, the visual material should
be replaced
by documentary
evidence
and testimonials in order to prove someone's guilt.
Obviously
, economic
crimes
could never
be displayed
in images.
In conclusion
, although the audiovisual
evidence
could provide judges with the information concerning a
crime
scene, I am of the belief that they are not adequate in all
crimes
, since there are ones which cannot
be caught
by a camera
Funny
Love
Wow
Angry
Sad