I was reading a story in the paper today about a village in England, I forget where exactly, where the residents believe the police are concentrating on going after speeding motorists, rather than burglars. To highlight their frustration, they have added a sign, below an official one boasting “1209 speeding motorists caught” or some such figure, reading “0 burglars caught”.
Anyway, that amsuing tale is somewhat beside the point. The story quoted a police superintendent complaining that the public have gained an inaccurate impression of the policeman’s lot, thanks to TV shows where the plucky detective wraps up the case within an hour-long show. He said: “Knowing that individuals are responsible for certain crimes and being able to convict them are very different things”.
OK, I know this is the case, but why? I’ve read similar quotes lots of times before - “Police said that they know Mr X was responsible for a number of crimes in the area, but were powerless to press charges…”
Surely if the police know than Mr X did the crime, why aren’t they able to put their case forward and try to persuade the court that he did? I suspect the answer lies in “concrete evidence”, but is this actually required by law? Could anyone with legal knowledge enlighten me please?