Forensic Evidence Vs Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence is a big factor when anybody is trialed for doing something illegal. It is the difference between being accused of being guilty or innocent. In “Forensic: Evidence, Clues, and Investigation” by Andrea Campbell, forensic science is the most important type of evidence to present at a trial. According to the passage, in paragraph five, the rules of forensic evidence are how evidence can be presented in the courtroom. There are four types of evidence. The first type is testimony, other types are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Lastly, the fourth type of forensic evidence is “real, or physical evidence”, meaning that it is hard evidence such as anything that is capable of being touched, or tangible.
In paragraph seven Andrea
uttered that “Forensic evidence, which falls into the fourth category above, often serves as the added weight that helps tip the scales of justice.” Although forensic evidence doesn’t serve all cases, she thinks that it is the best evidence to use because “Typically it plays a far more important role in the investigation of violent crimes than in the investigation of property crimes or accidents” which is said in paragraph eight. She also said that attorneys often attack the validness of the forensic evidence by pointing to lapses in the way it was handled or collected. She also said that forensic scientist and prosecutors should follow proper handling of the evidence. Meaning that the only thing that can mess up the best evidence is by human error.
Given these points, the author makes it clear that it is best to use forensic evidence to present at a trial because it is the evidence that will determine the guilty from the innocent. It is the hard evidence that plays a big role in a case. Depending on how the people use that evidence is how the trial can turn out.