circumstantial evidence

简明释义

情况证据

英英释义

例句

1.She was convicted based on circumstantial evidence linking her to the crime, even though she had an alibi.

尽管她有不在场证明，但她还是因与犯罪有关的间接证据而被定罪。

2.The defense attorney argued that the circumstantial evidence could not definitively prove his client's guilt.

辩护律师辩称，间接证据无法明确证明他的客户有罪。

3.In many cases, circumstantial evidence can be as powerful as direct evidence if it is compelling enough.

在许多情况下，间接证据如果足够有说服力，可以和直接证据一样强大。

4.The jury found him guilty based on the circumstantial evidence, which included his fingerprints at the crime scene.

陪审团根据间接证据做出了有罪判决，其中包括他在犯罪现场的指纹。

5.The detective explained that while there was no eyewitness, the circumstantial evidence pointed to the suspect's involvement.

侦探解释说，虽然没有目击者，但间接证据指向了嫌疑人的参与。

作文

In the realm of law and justice, the term circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Unlike direct evidence, which directly proves a fact (like eyewitness testimony), circumstantial evidence requires a judge or jury to make a series of logical deductions to arrive at a conclusion. This type of evidence is often seen in criminal cases where direct evidence may be scarce or unavailable. For instance, if a person is found at the scene of a crime with no alibi, their presence can be considered circumstantial evidence suggesting their involvement, even if there are no witnesses to the act itself.The reliability of circumstantial evidence can vary significantly. In some cases, a collection of circumstantial evidence can create a compelling narrative that points towards guilt or innocence. For example, if a suspect's fingerprints are found on a weapon, they were seen fleeing the scene, and their motive is established, these pieces of evidence together form a strong case. However, it is crucial to understand that circumstantial evidence alone may not be sufficient for a conviction; it must be weighed carefully against the possibility of alternative explanations.Critics of relying heavily on circumstantial evidence argue that it can lead to wrongful convictions. They point out that innocent individuals can find themselves implicated simply due to coincidental circumstances. For instance, if someone is at a location where a crime occurs but has no connection to the crime, they could be wrongfully accused based solely on their presence. This highlights the importance of corroborating circumstantial evidence with additional proof before reaching a verdict.Moreover, the interpretation of circumstantial evidence can be influenced by biases or preconceived notions. Jurors may bring their own experiences and beliefs into the courtroom, which can color their understanding of the evidence presented. This subjectivity is why legal systems often require a high standard of proof, such as 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' particularly in criminal cases where the stakes are so high.In conclusion, while circumstantial evidence plays a vital role in many legal proceedings, it is essential to approach it with caution. It can be powerful when combined with other forms of evidence, but it also carries the risk of misinterpretation and wrongful accusations. Understanding the nuances of circumstantial evidence helps ensure that justice is served fairly and accurately, respecting both the rights of the accused and the pursuit of truth. As society continues to evolve, so too must our comprehension of how various types of evidence, including circumstantial evidence, influence the outcomes of legal cases.

在法律和司法的领域中，短语circumstantial evidence（间接证据）指的是依赖推断将其与事实结论相连的证据。与直接证据（如目击者证词）不同，circumstantial evidence需要法官或陪审团进行一系列逻辑推理来得出结论。这种类型的证据通常出现在刑事案件中，在这些案件中，直接证据可能稀缺或不可获得。例如，如果一个人被发现处于犯罪现场而没有不在场证明，他们的存在可以被视为circumstantial evidence（间接证据），暗示他们可能参与了犯罪，即使没有人目击到这一行为。circumstantial evidence（间接证据）的可靠性可能会有显著差异。在某些情况下，一系列的间接证据可以形成一个强有力的叙述，指向罪责或无辜。例如，如果在一把武器上发现了嫌疑人的指纹，他们被看到逃离现场，并且动机得到了证实，这些证据结合在一起形成了一个强有力的案件。然而，重要的是要理解，仅凭circumstantial evidence（间接证据）可能不足以定罪；在得出裁决之前，必须仔细权衡替代解释的可能性。批评者对过度依赖circumstantial evidence（间接证据）表示担忧，认为这可能导致错误定罪。他们指出，无辜的人可能仅因偶然的情况而受到牵连。例如，如果某人正好在发生犯罪的地点，但与该犯罪没有任何关联，他们可能仅凭存在而被错误指控。这突显出在得出裁决之前，验证circumstantial evidence（间接证据）与其他证据的重要性。此外，circumstantial evidence（间接证据）的解读可能会受到偏见或先入之见的影响。陪审员可能会将自己的经历和信念带入法庭，这可能会影响他们对呈现证据的理解。这种主观性是法律系统通常要求较高证据标准（例如“超出合理怀疑”）的原因，特别是在刑事案件中，风险如此之高。总之，虽然circumstantial evidence（间接证据）在许多法律程序中起着至关重要的作用，但必须谨慎对待。它与其他形式的证据结合时可以非常有力，但也带来了误解和错误指控的风险。理解circumstantial evidence（间接证据）的细微差别有助于确保公正和准确地实现正义，尊重被告的权利以及追求真相。随着社会的不断发展，我们对各种类型证据（包括circumstantial evidence（间接证据））如何影响法律案件的结果的理解也必须不断深化。