This usually means that details of what happened to perpetrate the alleged crime is amassed and presented to the court. Information designed to established who did what, when, and where. Often there will also be an explanation of why the person did it for context is important too.
In short the court will hear evidence.
Indeed the quality of the legal system is determined by the amount and reliability of evidence amassed and the integrity with which it is used. A court that relied on hearsay and opinion in the absence of facts would scare most sane people.
Step outside the court and the logic that underpins the legal system should still apply.
Decisions made from evidence should be smarter, more efficient and lead to more consistent outcomes than decisions made on a whim.
Unless I was crazy thirsty I wouldn’t pay $100 for a beer once I know that the going rate for a beer is $5.
Jumping on a train makes no sense unless I know where it is going… “The train on platform 10 is an all stations to the back of beyond”.
Clearly we gather, store and use evidence all the time.
Wait a moment.
This tsunami of logic is all very well if it was true but it is a ruse. Recent experiences suggest to me that we actually prefer to be without evidence when we make decisions. Our egos rather like seat of the pants choices that require us to think fast and punt on our hunches.
Instead of careful massing of information, turning it over with evaluation skills and maybe project a scenario or two, we guess.
If the gut says yes, then yes it is.
How else could a handbag be sold for $5,000, a third of the worlds population be eating themselves into disease, or climate change be denied?
I think that massing evidence, filtering it out and taking the time for an informed choice is just too hard for most of us, even when it is about the important stuff.
As a purveyor of evidence this really pisses me off.
Guilty your honour.