How can they say you were doing something they never witnessed?
You're right, that's basically all there is. That and what people in America refer to as the IRS.
The police don't need to literally witness a crime to arrest someone.
They would produce evidence subject to discovery and the court would either convict or acquit you. Depending on the situation there would be other charges, and maybe you confess for some reduction in sentencing, etc.
You mean like text messages? If you have texts and then video cameras of two people going into a hotel room, that's mighty fine evidence. What the hell else were they gonna do? Yoga?
You don't need eyewitnesses to get convictions. That is not the legal standard.
You are not proving they had sex. You're proving someone PAID for the sex.
The jury decides what has been proven, not you. It really is that simple. People get convicted all the time of crimes where nobody saw them do it. Because of other evidence and common sense.
And look, think about the standard that you're trying to push. If we have text messages before and after, plus video of them going in and coming out of the hotel room. Is that good enough for you? They could always say that they thought about sex but settled for monopoly and were only joking around later... Maybe you would believe that story, but maybe the average juror would laugh.
The prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, leaving no doubt in their minds about the defendant’s guilt.
No. The expression you looking for is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". What you wrote is proof beyond any doubt, which is not the legal standard.
Also, please take a look at Florida Chapter 796, or if you were concerned about another location, look at the state or local laws for that location. You will probably see that actually engaging in the act of sex is one of several ways that you could violate prostitution laws.
It's easier to understand the process under the assumption that the person is innocent.
If someone is arrested for prostitution, they would be fingerprinted, etc (processed), then within 24-48 hours will have an arraignment hearing. At the arraignment, a judge will present charges and the defendant will plea innocent or guilty. The judge will then set bail. The bail amount will be higher than the defendant can pay in the majority of cases (avg $10,000). The defendant will either buy bail bonds or have family help pay.
If not, which is very very likely, the defendant will be held in pre-trial detention, aka Jail. Half a million people are incarcerated because they are unable to pay their bail. This makes up 2/3rds of the prison population. These people are incarcerated because they are poor. Again, they have not been convicted of anything. During this time, it is very likely that the defendant will lose their job and housing.
After pre-trail detention, the defendant will go to trial. Here the police will produce whatever evidence they have in this hypothetical. For the sake of this hypothetical, the police do not fabricate evidence and instead rely on circumstantial evidence and random testimony from people who hate the defendant. This will be presented to the judge, having already been agreed on by the lawyers for the prosecution, state of xyz, and the defendant, public defender (or maybe private attorney). The judge, acting in capacity of the court, (possibly a jury, but more often a judge) will then either convict or acquit and lay out sentencing if applicable.
Genuinely something I've never considered, I'm sure they have some justification in the age old war on the poor.
