What Is The Difference Between Indication, Proof And Evidence?
Most people are used to hearing terms like evidence, proof and indication. Whether because we have read them, seen them on television, work in the legal or expert field or simply because of general knowledge, these concepts fall within our normal vocabulary, generally being used as synonyms.
However, although similar, these three words refer to different things. They are elements taken into account, for example, in forensic psychology and, by extension, in the judicial and legal world. However…What are the differences between indication, proof and evidence and how do you work with them?
As we have seen, the words indication, proof and evidence can be used in our usual vocabulary, but they are mainly linked to the judicial field. In this aspect, these terms are used in order to refer to all those elements that serve to establish relationships between specific elements of a case and hypothesize, reconstruct and demonstrate these relationships
The aforementioned elements arise from the investigation of the different professionals who investigate the case, and are generally collected from a specific scene or extrapolated from the investigation of the assumptions involved.
But even in the judicial field the terms evidence, indication and proof can be misused, there are frequent confusions due to the little delimitation between the different concepts (since the limits can be diffuse depending on the definition given to each one) and the fact that in many cases such delimitation has little importance since both evidence and the evidence in its judicial use.
Differences between indication, proof and evidence
In order to make the differences between each of the terms clear, below you can see the definition of indication, evidence and proof and the way in which they differ between them.
Cue: what makes us think about something
An indication is considered any perceptible element, whether material or not, that results from or is involved in the scene of a crime and that allows you to imagine the existence of a certain circumstance linked to the event or crime investigated.
For example, the existence of a glass at a crime scene, the disappearance of an object that should be present or the relocation of furniture at the scene can be clues. These are elements that allow us to point in a certain direction, but how and where they point has a certain subjectivity on the part of the researchers.
In fact, the police investigation usually begins by collecting evidence, which after subsequent analysis can be used to find evidence.
Evidence: when something demonstrates the existence of a relationship
Evidence is understood as any element that allows us to clearly establish the relationship between two elements found in the scene of crime. It can be understood as that evidence collected that clearly reflects a relationship with another element. For example, evidence could be fingerprints on a stolen item or traces of blood or other bodily fluids on a person or item.
Although they may not make logical sense or this may not correspond to what it seems to indicate at a behavioral level (for example, having a victim’s blood on one’s clothing does not necessarily imply that the person dressed in it is the aggressor), it is unequivocal the fact that there is a link (if the blood on the clothing is that of a person, said clothing has been in contact with the crime scene or with the victim).
Evidence is usually obtained through analysis of the crime area and the numerous clues found, obtaining objective results through them.
Test: the element with which we seek to find the truth
We call proof any element or argument that It is used in order to demonstrate the truth or falsity of a fact Thus, evidence is that instrument used to judicially demonstrate a fact and that allows us to reach the level of conviction necessary to accept or reject a specific idea or hypothesis.
We can find evidence of two types: Indicative or sufficient. We understand sufficient evidence to be evidence that allows us to guarantee the involvement of the accused and that may be sufficient to reach a verdict, being extracted from evidence.
With regard to circumstantial evidence, as you can guess from its name, these are those that come from evidence that by themselves are not decisive. Thus, although they allow us to think and indicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, his presence is not enough to demonstrate the type of involvement of the accused.
Digging deeper into the differences
Although we have explained what each of these three terms means, the differentiation between them may not be completely clear, so a more specific explanation of the differences between each one is necessary.
As we have indicated, proof can be defined as the element with which it is intended to demonstrate the truth or falsity of something. In this way, we will talk about a test whenever we are using a certain piece of evidence or evidence with the purpose of proving something. Thus, both clues and evidence can be evidence when used judicially.
Evidence and indication, however, are elements that exclude each other, differentiating in that while the second is generally a product or element linked to the crime scene that can point in a certain direction, the evidence can demonstrate per se the existence of a certain reality. Furthermore, while the indication is more subjective and depends to a greater extent on the researcher, the evidence is obtained through the analysis of the indicative elements, turning out to be objective.
