Motives and Opportunities: Is They Necessary to Prove Murder?

When someone is prosecuted for murder, you are often asked to have "motivation and opportunity" to commit a crime. Prosecutors can use this argument in the court. If a case is reported, the media echoes those words without doubt. Defense may argue that there is no motivation or opportunity as part of defense. But is motivation and opportunity necessary to confess?

Every crime has an element. The element of crime is what must be proved to prove that the defendant is guilty. For instance, prosecutors must prove that the defendant killed the victim in order to accuse the accused with murder charges. A malignant person means basically having a plan to kill.

In order to prove that the defendant is guilty, there is no motivation or the opportunity to commit a crime. So, why are these words spoken very well in court?

Motivation is why The defendant killed. Money and sex are a common motive. Jealousy about recently acquired life insurance and incidents, for example, may be a strong motive.

If the defendant had the motivation to kill the victim, such evidence is appropriate to prove that he actually killed the victim. Defense may point to other people with a possible motivation. Or they may claim that the motive of the defendant was not enough to kill him.

There is no need to prove that the defendant is guilty, but the motive is often debated at trial. It is because the necessity to know the reason is strong. And in our jury system, people decide guilt.

Murder is an extreme act and generally looks outside the norm of human behavior. It is natural that you want to know why the jury does such an act. Also, it is natural that the jury wants to hear a justified reason before accounting for a person suspected of murdering with a crime, living in a prison, or even death. It is.

The opportunity to commit a crime is a bit more obvious. Opportunities are basic, if not necessary, that people want to prove.

Did any accused in the area where the crime occurred? Did he know familiar with the area? Did you have transportation as needed? Did you not have an alibi to confirm that the defendant was in another place? Or, if the defendant has an alibi, is it a challenging alibi?

These questions do not need to be technically answered to prove that the defendant is guilty, but the jury wants to know. Therefore, the prosecution should answer these questions in order to gain confidence. The Defense Agency, if possible, will benefit from doubting whether the defendant is likely to commit a crime by actively keeping such questions in the jury's heart.

The problem of motivation and opportunity is that the criminal trial often shows that it is more than strictly judging whether the prosecution proves the element of crime. It is also important to answer human doubts as to why people commit crimes.

You can publish this article free of charge in electronic version or print version. Includes bylines, and all links remain active. I would appreciate a copy of the courtesy of your publication.

Related Photos