No it does not. That it is not the question that juries are tasked with.
In a criminal law case, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime. If a "reasonable doubt" exists then the defendant must be found "not guilty".
What this means is that it is possible for a guilty person to be acquitted and found "not guilty" because of a lack of cogent evidence. This is a particular risk in historical crimes where forensic evidence has long been destroyed.
Imagine a fictitious high profile case of a celebrity charged with committing crimes against a minor who reports the crime several years later. The only evidence against the defendant is the witness evidence of the alleged victim.
The credibility of a witness or party is based upon the ability of the jury to trust and believe what he or she says, and relates to the accuracy of his or her testimony as well as to its logic, truthfulness, and sincerity. Unless the testimony is contrary to other known facts or is extremely unlikely based on human experience, the test of credibility is purely subjective.So the case hinges on the credibility of the witness and the defence is successful in undermining this. Was this because the witness had been lying or mistaken about what had happened, was under pressure and anxious about being cross-examined, or just had a bad day and did not present well in court? Whatever the reason, it gave rise to the "reasonable doubt"; which meant the defendant was "not guilty" as far as criminal law was concerned.
Unfortunately, for an alleged victim in a case such as the one above, trial by media continues after the case. She is branded a liar by a few careless journalists and commentators, while the person who was accused of the crimes is proclaimed to be "innocent" - when neither of these claims are strictly true or supported by any evidence.
