For those FOR the death penalty with less safeguards

No disagreement here. Except no long drawn out trial is needed, all the facts are already there. She made the accusation it was the wrong person so she should pay for that. No facts are being disputed except guilt and guilt is not judged by her.

 

Rape is sex, forced sex. Guys are raped by other guys, that is forced sex also. I don't understand what you are disagreeing with or think I'm disagreeing with.

My point was however you define it is that it occours for a short period of time then it is over. What she did is FAR FAR WORSE than the rape done to her. Her infliction of wrong on another person unlike her rape is not over in a day or less. Her raping another person (the false accusation) lasted for 26 years. The gravity of what she did is lightyears more evil than the rape done to her.

If I were given a choice between rape and loosing 26 years of my life the choice would be easy. The rape is over quick then I spend the rest of the 9489 days healing. I would much rather be raped than have my entire life destroyed.

 

two books worth reading

Amazon.com: Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness and the Expert…@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TJ5H9VZQL.@@AMEPARAM@@51TJ5H9VZQL

Amazon.com: Eyewitness Testimony: With a new preface by the author (9780674287778): Elizabeth F. Loftus: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Cu5Qn2exL.@@AMEPARAM@@51Cu5Qn2exL

obviously, she made a mistake
Chatman should be focusing on the trial procedures
and how the prosecutor and police obtained evidence

i would think the very least she could do
is stand beside Chatman when he annouces
his lawsuit against the prosecutor, judge, etc

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here but don't government workers have absolute immunity from civil liability ? Unless that governing body decides that you CAN sue them they are completely immune. The city or state HAS to decide to allow you to sue them. If they decide they won't give you that permission then your case gets thrown out because of absolute immunity from civil liability.

 

My ideas are a bit different from the rest I have seen stated. While it is horrible that she was raped and horrible that he was falsely imprisoned and I personaly think in all cases that something similar to the Greek courts of Socratees time would be good (if the accused is found inocent then the acusor is penalized for bringing the complaint) I still say that if anything it is to HARD for a person to be convicted.

I know the general wisdom is that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to send one inocent man to jail BUT if you look at it from cold truth then this becomes more questionable. The EXTREAM majority of crimes are commited by repeat offenders, so you let 100 guilty murderers go free and each of them kill 2 more people before they are stoped. Now 200 people are dead and 1 inocent man avoided jail, 200 lives for one seems a bad trade off to me. Since Im sure someone will use the argument I will anwser it before its asked, while I would not be happy about it or decline to defend my self as best I could, yes I would still find it a better trade if I was the 1 inocent man so long as those other 100 killers were removed by my sacrifice.

I knew a man who had committed a murder before I met him. He was caught and tried, they had the murder weapon and the bloody clothes, the body and so on. The investigators had found his prints on the door to where the body was hidden and thats how they knew to look at him and how they got the warrant that got them the rest of the evidence. His lawyer argued it was a public access area and so his prints being there would not have been unreasonable so there had been no basis for the warrant and won the argument so all the rest of the evidence was thrown out and the prosecutions case fell apart so he walked. IIRC one of his other 2 cases (both of which he did SOME time for murder on) was after that one. So, while he did turn it around and quit killing folks later on, he had commited 3 murders that he was tried for, convicted on 2 and he evenacknowledged should have been on the third and yet still walked the streets when I knew him.

No system will preform flawlessly as much as we might wish it would, I tend to figure though that makeing sure that the penalty when convicted is such that no body will want to risk it twice (includeing killing the guilty the first time out for violent crimes above simple assault) and being sure that those who commit crimes and get caught face the penalty would save so many more people than it would harm or even to simply expand the death penalty and turn prisons back into places you dont want to be rather than a step up for a lot of wage slaves, and you wouldnt have to be afraid for your wife or daughter to walk down the street at night, much less be afraid of robbers kicking in your door to rob your house.

 

Sorry Hartage. That's what a jury USED to be for. Now a jury is merely a formality. The judge decides what they can and can't know. And they're specifically chosen to be as ignorant as possible on the subjects pertaining to the trial. The fact that they're explicitly forbidden from asking direct questions, makes a mockery of the idea that the goal is justice.

 

Ths beauty of the jury system, in theory, is that you are innocent until proven guilty by a group of peers and that you have a right to face your accuser after hearing the evidence against you. I am sure there are some short-failings in this system, but I cannot imagine a better one nor one that would give me more opportunity to vindicate myself. I also cannot imagine the remorse and guilt that I would burdun, if ever I falsely accused someone and took their freedom by mistake. Honest mistakes are made but when proven to be false, should be amended and restituted.

 

I supose I should also clarify for my statments above that while Im for makeing the penalties harsher and keeping it at LEAST as easy to convict that I also would see it as needed to elimenate prosecution for most crimes other than rape, murder, or theft and make sure NO crime that didnt involve an unwilling victim (prostitution, drugs, NON-rigged gambeling since rigged would be theft, etc) would be a prosecutable crime or a crime at all for that matter.

 

2006 Duke University lacrosse rape case
Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann filed a federal lawsuit alleging a broad conspiracy to frame the players. Named in the suit were Nifong, the lab that handled the DNA work, the city of Durham, the city's former police chief, the deputy police chief, the two police detectives who handled the case and five other police department employees

Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:2009-03-20_610_N_Buchanan_Blvd_in_Durham.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/2009-03-20_610_N_Buchanan_Blvd_in_Durham.jpg/220px-2009-03-20_610_N_Buchanan_Blvd_in_Durham.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/17/2009-03-20_610_N_Buchanan_Blvd_in_Durham.jpg/220px-2009-03-20_610_N_Buchanan_Blvd_in_Durham.jpg

would definitely have the lawyers
go over any evidence presented / trial procedures
with a fine tooth comb
plus, did the police use suggestive questioning
on the victim regarding Chatman as a suspect ?

black male suspect
white female rape victim
was there a public outcry to solve this case ?

i'd like to see the newspapers, 2-3 days after the rape . . .

 

Well I can come up with a counter case. Look up the Crowe case in escondido CA. Police "detectives" (used loosely) used psychological pressure to get a murdered girl's 13yo brother and two friends to admit to a killing they never did. The police ignored evidence to the contrary pointing to the likely suspect a prowler with BLOOD SPLATERS on his clothes. (that prowler would later be convicted after the sherrif's office takes over the case). http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/20040219-1638-tuite-late.html

Do you know what happened to those police detectives after the injustice they perpetrated and their absolute incompetence ? Absolutely nothing. Despite all they have done to malign innocent kids and practicly let a killer stay free they were found to have done no wrong.

 

The Interrogation of Michael Crowe

what can i say . . .
those detectives should have been tarred and feathered
nowadays, it seems police have carte blanche
as long as they get a confession

they were found to have done no wrong

whoever absolved them of any guilt should also be tarred and feathered
it seems there is a lawsuit (?) in this case
i can only hope that justice is/was done

 

Ok, I'll give you that it is assault. My opinion still stands. I would much rather be assaulted, beaten up whatever you prefer to name it as, over having 26 years of my life in prison for doing nothing.

What she did to an innocent was far more heinous than what was ever done to her. If we mean to prosecute her rapist, we should just as zealously prosecute her rape (wrong or whatever label) of Charles Chatman.

 

Yes, that looks to be the current trend. Many people don't realize that cops can bold faced lie straight to your face about anything. They can bully you, play mind games, wear you down with no sleep, expose you to cold, whatever it takes. They can tell you your wife is dead when she is in the next room. They are allowed to use any ruse, deceit, cheat, lie that any common charlatan uses. All because you have the right to stay silent. If you are too stupid or ignorant to know that too damned bad. You will be fed to the wolves (the cops).

They are not all bad, but if you know what is good for you watch yourself around cops. Take nothing they say as the truth untill you have confirmation.

 

Rape = AIDS still willing?

 

As compared to 26 years of PRISON rape?

If that's my choice, I'll take one on the outside any time, without a second thought.

 

Hmm.... raped once..... vs raped over and over again in prison... tough choice but I'll take being raped once. I would hate to be in the prison shower and drop the soap.


As for the aids thing..... what would give you a better chance at winning the lottery ? (aids) One ticket (raped once) or many, many tickets ? (raped over 26 years) Tough choice, but I'll pick raped ONCE again.

 

No claims of rape. Just a comparison of wrongs done. I am of the opinion that given a choice I would much rather go through what was done to her vs what she did to Charls Chatman

Seems to be an effort to make it seem that 26 years out of one's life is nothing. While a woman raped once and it is the end of the world. Neither is very paletable but I'll go through what she went through well before I will go through what he went through.

If what was done to her (rape) is to be prosecuted as a wrong. Then her even greater wrong to another should be more zelously prosecuted.