Told the court I wouldn’t throw someone in jail without evidence

The Prosecuting Attorney asked me if I could convict the defendant on victim testimony alone. I inquired cause I didn’t understand & verified that I was being asked to put someone in prison solely on what the victim claims happened.

It seemed like a really nasty case & I’m glad I got kicked off, but I had no idea people still go to prison with the only “evidence” being what the victim says happened!

Is this common? Has this happened to anyone?

EDIT: For some additional context and clarification, I didn’t go to school in the United States & have not received any form of education on the legal system here other than random reading online & what I heard in the courtroom during jury duty.

I didn’t know you can convict someone on victim testimony alone. I think it it realistic to assume there would be personal bias in such a situation. I was under the impression you need at least one piece of additional evidence in the form of an expert opinion, a witness, an additional testimony from someone else, or something physical like forensics (DNA, a weapon, a body, etc.).. I’m also wondering if I took the question too literally.

After reading a lot of comments and some other discussions, I can understand how victim testimony is the only evidence available in certain situations. It is heartbreaking that so many victims don’t get justice & I understand that on a personal level.

I also have a much better understanding of reasonable doubt & of the legal system here & it’s definitely not perfect. There are guilty people walking the streets & innocent people in jail.

I genuinely appreciate the people who took the time to try and explain a lot of this to me.