For those FOR the death penalty with less safeguards

hartage · Jan 6, 2008

monkeyman said: ↑

Intent dose in fact make a difference, just as you stated, killing a person with intent is murder, killing a person due to gross negligence (drunk driveing for instance) is manslaughter and carries a much lower penalty because there was no intent to commit harm but you chose to act negligently, killing a person with intent to save your own life is called self defense and if that intent can be proven carries no penalty, killing someone in a car crash resulting from a blown tire (say while driveing safely in a maintained vehicle that ran over debries on the road and blew the tire causeing you to loose controle) is called an acident and also carries no penalty. So intent, even in your own example is very definatly a consideration. It is very unlikely that she knew he was not the guy who did it and chose to lie, I woud suspect she would want to see the guy who actualy did it go to prison not just some one at random, but he may well have looked very much like the attacker, police may have suggested that it was him and even if they didnt theres still the fact that a line up is very flawed as a means of identification (a meathod chosen by the police not the victim) since it is basicly a multiple choice question and the mind is trained to assume that the correct anwser is presented in the choices of a multiple choice question. So at worst her actions might be similar to manslaughter (negligence) unless it could be proven she made an intentional mis identification.

Eye witness information is also WELL known for being highly unreliable. Any rookey cop can tell you that if they go to the scene of any crime (or even when mock crimes are staged in the accadamey with the cadets as witnesses) that you will generaly have as many DIFFERENT descriptions of the crime and suspects or vehicles as you have witnesses. You are doing well if the witnesses even agree on the number of people involved, the basic events (kicked in front door or snuck in back door, etc.), and general descriptions like male/female, black/white/hispanic, jeans/shorts/sweats, car/truck/van, late modle/older, dark color/light color (black, blue, green and red to describe the same vehicles color are comon at night as are white, grey, silver, tan). So knowing this, if they didnt have anything to support her ID and they prosecuted the case anyway then it is indeed the prosecutors who hold the larger share of negligence since they would know she could easily be telling the 'truth' as she thought it to be and still VERY likely be wrong and still prosecuted him. Since there it was over a rape then there should have been forensic evidence such as bodily fluid from the attacker, hair from various sources on his body, likely skin and or blood under her nails from a strugle (blood type could be determined and compared even before DNA as well as if she has his skin there should be skin missing from him/scars for some time) as well as most likely finger prints on her and or at the scene. So unless there was a LOT of VERY unlikely coincidences (happened in an area he had recently been, done by a guy who matched his blood type, he was scarred up to resemble haveing been in a strugle, etc) to make further evidence all fit him (in which case it comes more in line with accident the manslaughter just like if it happened to be his double who did it for her ID) then the police and DA would be FAR more responsible for his wrongful conviction than she would.

All of that said, even in the case of an accident you can still generaly be held financialy responsible for repairations, and it could be reasonable for her to be named in a lawsuit but the main target would have to be the ones who accepted her ID and used it to convict him with, presumably, no other evidence.

Something to consider also is that if a person faces life for makeing a bad ID no one is likely to ID a perp for anything and will it be better if someone realises that the person in the lineup that is dressed totaly different then when they saw them for a few seconds (she may well have been blindfolded, hooded or otherwise prevented from seeing her attacker well for most of the time) in a paniced time COULD have a twin or someone that looks just like them and it COULD be that the other person is the one who actualy murdered someone in front of them so even though they know it was the guy in front of them the CHANCE (not reasonable in their mind but possible) that it could have been an evil twin and they could go to prison for life if they ID them and they had a twin then they dont ID them. You find out later it WAS the person they looked at when you see the guy kill your family.

Witness IDs (especialy when its just 1 or maybe 2 witnesses)can NOT be used as the ONLY evidence against a person but if you cant have them IDed to know who to look at and compare the evidence to then we would have to toss open the prison doors and let everyone out and not bother to have courts or prisons or ANY laws since none could be enforced. Those implementing our system in this case dropped the ball in a big way and absolutely owe this man but the witnesses part of that is small at best since the others involved knew her testimoney was unreliable.
Click to expand...

Fine damnit, you make too much sense. Kicking and screaming but I will have to adjust my position to agree that she is less culpable than those that accepted only a single "evidence". A known unreliable evidence at that.

She should still spend 26 years of her life kissing the guy's butt for her part in ruining his life.

But 26 years of imprisonmnet is still owed. Prosecutor, judge, jury and the cops involved should split those 26 years between them and go to prison.

This is just such an incrediblely mind-numbing injustice.

Log in or Sign up

For those FOR the death penalty with less safeguards

hartage Monkey+++

Log in or Sign up

For those FOR the death penalty with less safeguards

hartage Monkey+++

Useful Searches