The Basics of Successful Prosecution: A Primer for Law Enforcers and Other Like-

[yaaaaay]

The Basics of Successful Prosecution:
A Primer for Law Enforcers and Other Like-Minded Individuals
By: Beatrice Margo

Introduction

A key basis to maintaining law and order in any society is the pursuit of both punishment and rehabilitation of criminals. Punishment serves as society enacting justice and as a deterrent. Rehabilitation serves to allow criminals to return to society on good terms so that they do not need or are not tempted to return to criminal activity.

Before an accused can face either punishment or rehabilitation, however, they must first be found guilty and convicted of a crime. Once the criminal's guilt is established, the sentence given to them is then legitimate.

This work provides a basic introduction to the practice of prosecution and how they can be successfully carried out. It is this work's author's hope that enforcers of the law or any other like-minded individuals who wish to serve as a prosecutor learn from this work so not only are criminals justifiably convicted, but also so that cases that do not deserve prosecution do not take up precious time and resources.

Three Components of a Guilty Individual

The establishment of guilt of an accused can be carried out by providing, to the judge, three key pieces of information: means, motive, and opportunity.

Means is the physical (and perhaps metaphysyical, if dealing with magical, divine, or otherwise supernatural elements) explanation of how an accused committed a crime. This can include: physical descriptions of how the accused committed the crime; and the results of a crime matching a tool or capable of producing those results possessed by the accused.

Motive is the reason for why the accused committed the crime. This can range from general vices such as greed to more specific explanations such as a person murdering another to avenge someone close to them. Generally, the more specific the motive provided, the stronger indication of the accused's guilt.

Opportunity explains when an accused committed a crime and that they had the chance to do so. This can be argued by using witness testimony or logical arguments that places the accused at the scene and time of the crime.

While not all three key pieces of information are needed to determine that the accused is the guilty criminal. The more numerous and more detailed the information, the stronger the argument that the accused is indeed the guilty criminal. More information can also have an exclusionary effect: by providing evidence that specifically applies to the accused, the possibility of the crime being committed by another party is whittled down.

Evidence and the Relation to the Three Components

Evidence is any object, piece of information, or witness testimony that supports arguments answering how (means), why (motive), and when (opportunity) an accused has committed a crime.

Evidence can be (but is not limited to):

• Eye witness testimony
• Written witness testimony
• Expert testimony
• Physical objects

The strongest piece of evidence are the ones that can, using basic logic or direct observation, tie the accused to the crime. For example, a witness can state they saw the accused commit the crime; expert testimony can state that the results of a crime do indeed qualify as a crime; physical evidence can place the accused at the time, place, and perhaps even as the perpetrator of the crime.

It should be noted, however, that certain types of evidence may not be worthwhile to present depending on the circumstances or if other stronger evidence can be presented. For example, eye witness testimony can be easily countered by other eye witness testimony, devolving the case into a they-said/they-said situation.

Conversely, written witness testimony, when not backed up by the testifier in the court, is at risk of being effectively argued against should the defense find a suitable weakness within it. Generally, the longer the written testimony, the more possible holes the defense may find within it.

Expert testimony is indirect and risks providing information that is removed from the specific context of the crime.

Physical objects also require suitable context to be effective evidence. Mere possession of an object does not necessarily denote execution of a crime. A person in possession of a skeleton may be a necromancer hoping to raise the skeleton for nefarious purposes. However, separate from all other context, it could also be effectively argued that a person possessing a skeleton may be on their way to give it a proper burial.

Because each type of evidence has its weaknesses, a prosecutor should always attempt to layer multiple pieces of evidence, creating an overlapping series of arguments that rules out distractions and counter-arguments.

Evidence and the Relation to the Laws

Every piece of evidence should, most importantly, be properly compared to the laws that the accused has been accused of breaking. Laws should be, as much as possible, interpreted and related to the evidence as literally as possible to establish the strongest relation between evidence, crime, and accused. While a judge may exercise discretion and rule according to a non-literal interpretation of the law, ignoring a literal violation of the law is much less likely to happen as it is commonly considered the bare minimum of interpretation of the law.

Critical examination of a law is key in determining if a piece of evidence is of useful relation. This can be done, for example, of noting the verbs within the law--the actions which are specifically outlined as illegal.

For example, consider the following law:

Desecration: A person found guilty of attempting to dishonor, defile, or animate the dead has committed Desecration. Minor to Capital.

Minor: Tampering with a grave or retrieving things from it.
Serious: Destroying a grave or committing otherwise irreparable damage.
Capital: Animating the dead.

And note the verbs describing actions contrary to the law:

• Dishonour
• Defile
• Tampering
• Retrieving things from
• Destroying
• Causing irreparable damage
• Animating the dead

Detailing a list of actions, this law clearly specifies actions--some of which are more literal than others--which would be illegal for people to perform. One should also note, however, actions which are not listed and described. For example, possession of a corpse or disembodied body parts, possession of necromantic items, possession of necromantic literature.

While these unlisted actions may be related to the listed actions and may be considered vile and abhorrent to the average person they are not strictly violations of the law. It is important to break down an accused's actions into as many base component parts as possible so you can critically examine their actions.

A person who digs up a buried corpse and carries it on their person has committed multiple actions. This includes digging and the act of carrying/possession of a corpse, both of which are different actions of which only one is specifically defined as illegal.

Likewise, a person who possesses and uses an artifact of animating the dead to animate a skeleton into unlife has committed various different actions, including: possession of necromantic material (the artifact), possession of a skeleton, and the actual animation of the dead. Again, only one of these is strictly defined as illegal.

When the actions are broken down into these distinct parts, it becomes clear what evidence is necessary to prove the accused has performed which action. That is, evidence that proves the accused possess necromancy related material is weak and does not conclusively prove that the accused has broken the law. Instead and in comparison, evidence (such as eye witness testimony) that proves the accused has animated the dead is much stronger and more likely to convince a judge of the accused's guilt.

While weaker tangential actions may support other evidence, the key to a successful prosecution is determining the many base actions performed by the accused and following through on focusing on the evidence that the accused has committed actions which are specifically illegal.

Summary - Point by Point Guide

In summary, to successfully prosecute an accused, one should strive to go through the following steps:

1) Capture the accused (and provide them with the ability to call for an advocate to ensure a fair and just trial)
2) Gather and re-examine as much evidence as possible, including:
2a) Searching the accused for any contraband or criminally related items
2b) Gathering eye, written, and expert testimony
2c) Referencing previously written files related to the accused
3) Examine the evidence to determine what laws the accused has broken
4) Critically compare and contrast the evidence to the laws to determine what specific actions taken by the accused violated the laws, this includes determining:
4a) The specific actions the accused has performed
4b)If these specific actions are explicitly listed as contrary to the laws
5) Prosecute the accused and bring the case to trial

By following these summarized points, one should have the basis to prosecute the majority of cases that come across one's desk.

Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions

"Other than the types of evidence already listed, how can I gather more evidence to prove an accused's guilt?"

A good enforcer of the law documents and reports every instance of note as part of their regular duties. Even if an incident seems minor and inconsequential at first, records of these incidents may prove to be valuable later on as they could be tied to an accused at a later time.

"What if I capture a suspect but all the evidence gathered so far is insufficient?"

Release them. First of all, they might actually be not guilty of whatever they are suspected of doing.

Secondly, for a number of reasons, law enforcers should avoid detaining and questioning suspects when there is insufficient evidence to suspect them of wrong-doing. Law enforcers do not exist within a vacuum and, in fact, the relationship between law enforcers and the rest of a society is a key tool in preventing crime and convicting criminals.

For example, law enforcers that are corrupt or frequently hassle the public are less likely to have developed a cache of good will that they can be drawn upon to convince witnesses and bystanders to offer their help and cooperate with a case.

"If I release a suspect due to lack of evidence, what do I do next?"

Just because not even evidence is gathered at a certain time, does not mean no other evidence exists or can be discovered. Unless a suspect is completely cleared, continue to investigate and search for new evidence: one could monitor the suspect for any further wrong-doing or associates of the suspect can be questioned.

It is better to take one's time and secure the evidence needed to achieve a conviction instead of rushing a suspect to trial where they will be found not guilty due to a lack of strong evidence.