proof and evidence

polaco

Member
Poland/polish
Hi,

can somebody explain me difference between proof and evidence in the legal english? As i understand it, proof has more abstract meaning, while evidence is more practical.

thanks in advance
 
  • Sabelotodo

    Senior Member
    English, United States
    It is not really a difference of abstract versus practical. Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.

    Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof. If the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I robbed a bank. A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would prove that I robbed a bank.
     

    nycphotography

    Senior Member
    American English
    Sabelotodo said:
    It is not really a difference of abstract versus practical. Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.

    Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof. If the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I robbed a bank. A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would prove that I robbed a bank.

    Or at least that someone resembling you robbed the bank.

    Be wary of lax standards for proof. We all want to know things absolutely, which causes us to tend to misinterpret mere evidence as proof.
     

    ICanGuessTheRest

    Member
    Southeastern United States
    Proof comes from a premise or premisses and an argument. For instance:

    (1) All cats have fur.

    (2) Fluffy is a cat.

    (3) If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy has fur.

    (1) and (2) are premisses. (3) is an argument. If the premisses are true and the argument is reasonable, we have proof that Fluffy has fur.

    The problem usually is trying to establish that your premisses are true. Events occur in time. To actually say that an event happened requires evidence of its occurance. Evidence can be eyewitness accounts and the current effects of the event's occurance. For instance we may have:

    (A) A live, furless cat with a collar bearing the name tag "Fluffy."

    (B) a pile of white curly hair near the cat.

    (C) a hair clipper.

    (D) a 10 year old boy with bleeding scratches all over his forearms. He denies having shaved the fur off the cat.

    (E) a 7 year old girl who claims to have seen the boy shaving the fur off the the cat.

    We might:

    (F) finger print the boy. We lift finger prints off of the clipper. They match.

    (G) call in a veterinarian. She says the scratches on the boy's are are consistant with the scratches that the cat could have made.

    (H) test the blood on the cat's claws. The DNA of the blood on the cat's claws matches the boy's DNA.

    (I) test the DNA of Cat. The DNA of the pile of curly hair on the floor matches the cat's DNA.

    Items (A) through (I) are evidence. But until someone puts together a logical, inductive argument using the evidence as premisses, there's no proof that Fluffy ever had any fur or that the boy shaved it off.
     
    Top