General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
Woman is horny ![]() Oh, even better, "the sex was terrible so I'm going to accuse you of rape". Yeah that's realistic. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
You can't see any reason why she wouldn't want to go to trial in an attempt to put an innocent person in prison? Like the massive hassle of going to trial, the risk that people won't believe her, and the guilt from putting an innocent person in jail? All that just so no one will call her a slut when probably no one cared about it until she claimed it was rape? Really? |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
Of course all you twit laymen are missing the real problem in the case, the photo identification with no other corroboration. If combined with less than stellar procedure for the photo line up, and this "police showed them a photo of the Cowboys basketball team" if accurate, indicates piss poor procedure, generates a large majority of false convictions. Damn near every false conviction uncovered in Texas was made this way, and a large portion of those rape and sexual assault cases. A state commission has been cracking down on unreliable evidence procedure such as this for a few years.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
Even in this case it's not one woman giving evidence but two of a similar act at the same party, neither of whom appears to have known the other.
Of course all you twit laymen are missing the real problem in the case, the photo identification with no other corroboration. If combined with less than stellar procedure for the photo line up, and this "police showed them a photo of the Cowboys basketball team" if accurate, indicates piss poor procedure, generates a large majority of false convictions. Damn near every false conviction uncovered in Texas was made this way, and a large portion of those rape and sexual assault cases. A state commission has been cracking down on unreliable evidence procedure such as this for a few years. the ID procedure is not unsound if it was known that basketball players from that team were at the party-and he was at the party, he seems to admit that. There's no express admission of that in the article but he did give a statement to police that he didn't know what happened in the basement where this allegedly occurred. Most likely that's the case because he admitted to being at the party itself but denied being in the basement. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
the rape conviction rates (if you take into account those cases that don't go to trial) suggests that a woman's word is worth almost nothing in court and even with enough other evidence to go to court the conviction rates are low. And it's not that these are high profile cases. These are stories broke by ESPN because the defendants were athletes. What about all the stories that ESPN doesn't report on? |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
Which do you consider to be the greater problem, and to what extent do the problems differ in magnitude: rape, or false accusations of rape. I think the latter is actually worse. JM (Not to defend Alby's position.) |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
The jury will come into the court-room with their own biases. Those biases are most definitely against the man. In the UK of all cases that go to court the conviction rate is 57%, for rape it's 58%. ie. Rape prosecutions are pretty much the average conviction rate. So no evidence of bias against the rapist there. What are the US figures? |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
My question is where was the evidence of conviction? 1. In any given case anything an freaking happen and it's impossible to design a justice system where some errors will not be made. It's not just rape cases as DNA reversed murder cases and witnesses and evidence can be mistaken or misunderstood in any type of case. We set the bar as beyond all reasonable doubt and judges hammer that home .... Lots of guilty go free because of that standard 2. In a rape case the evidence is often he said she said but a rape trial is a gruelling thing for an accuser/victim where you know a trained defense attorney will try to portray her as drunk, stoned, mistaken , lying ***** ice queen, slut, or whatever else will damage her credibility. Before that the police and prosecutors will generally have been over her story with a fine tooth comb looking for the problems with her credibility too. Those folks are generally busy folks with no desire to push forward anything that isn't real. 3. Here I understand that a jury heard at least two unrelated women tell a similar story about the same night. To most juries, and to most reasonable people generally, if you hear the exact same account from two different eyewitness sources with no connection or collaboration, you become reasonably certain that it's factual and accurate, Of course there are some liars out there. But sometimes there is no lie and a jury believes a victim because she is telling the simple truth. And a jury's empowered to find a witness credible. In that case if they believe testimony, they may convict. In this case, even If the accused did the act, he would have been far more likely to get away with it if there was only one accusing witness. With two accusers, his chances were slim unless he had SOMETHING big in his favor |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|