>Peter,
>
>I am not following this thread at all, but this phrase caught my attention
>
>>For me, the supposed fact that a 'confession' alone is apparently not enough is IMO an alarming interpretation of our law.
>
>I think is a common mistake (from my point of view and mostly related to the little I know about Argentinean law) to confuse proof with evidence in the case of confessions. A confession is just evidence, it does not prove anything, for then it would be very easy for a parent to confess a crime committed by their children, or a poor person to get paid by a rich person to confess their crime, or to extortionate someone to confess by threatening their family if they do not do so. Of course all this things can still happen, that is why more evidence is required that can sustain the confession.

These are valid arguments. But if all evidence is apparent but not hard, and there is a 'confession', then the law should still give the option to convict. Lack of HARD evidence should not imply that a conviction is therefore impossible.