Prison Time For Viewing Porn?

[legbreaker]

That's all nice and well said i guess, but it's all talk.  Simlar to what i said. 


You have any facts to back it up with?

Or is all you have opinion and conjecture?

Facts?  Ozmo, I just mentioned the CURRENT Duke case.....I now assume you think there IS legit evidence of a crime?  Furthermore, if you want facts, simply look to the innocence project and attorney, Barry Sheck.  They are handling mostly DNA based crimes and believe it or not lots of people are in prison even though THEIR DNA was not on or around the victim, BUT anothers WAS.  That's lots of facts right there, but that only is a small fraction of the many poor people in prison and wrongfully convicted of crimes.

Speaking of the Barry Schecks' innocence project, there recently was a man in Brooklyn released after 18 years in prison.  In the EARLY to mid 90's it was declared his DNA did not match the profile of the perpetrator, YET the head da (woman) refused to gie him a new trial or even respond to his case....until Barry Scheck got it 10 years later.  She recently ran for office in CT and I think she lost...of course most could see that a person like that doesn't belong in a position to make decisions.

These are all serious crimes.  We can not even imagine how many poor people on the streets near a robbery or something get pulled in every day and simply can NOT defend themselves.

How in the world is it fair that a prosecutors office, with unlimited funds, can go against a public defender making 28 thousand a year for 12 hours a day work?  You tell me.  At least when the rich get accused of a crime (oj) they have the cash to defend themselves and then the whole universe screams out about his "high paid" legal team.  I guarantee you one thing, as much money as OJ had, the State of california had more.

What's fair is fair, both the da office and the defendant should be given a attorney at the same level and work load.

Do you think defense attorneys success or not depends on the clients being innocent?  NO, it simply depends on the ability of the attorney to "tell a good story", convince and mislead and hope the jury buys it.  THE SAME GOES FOR THE PROSECUTORS.  The state WANTS people in jail!  If a new DA is unsuccessful at putting people in jail he WILL be replaced!

It's a bs game...and that is all it is to the attorneys, a b.s. GAME.  

[Dos Equis]

Facts?  Ozmo, I just mentioned the CURRENT Duke case.....I now assume you think there IS legit evidence of a crime?  Furthermore, if you want facts, simply look to the innocence project and attorney, Barry Sheck.  They are handling mostly DNA based crimes and believe it or not lots of people are in prison even though THEIR DNA was not on or around the victim, BUT anothers WAS.  That's lots of facts right there, but that only is a small fraction of the many poor people in prison and wrongfully convicted of crimes.

Speaking of the Barry Schecks' innocence project, there recently was a man in Brooklyn released after 18 years in prison.  In the EARLY to mid 90's it was declared his DNA did not match the profile of the perpetrator, YET the head da (woman) refused to gie him a new trial or even respond to his case....until Barry Scheck got it 10 years later.  She recently ran for office in CT and I think she lost...of course most could see that a person like that doesn't belong in a position to make decisions.

These are all serious crimes.  We can not even imagine how many poor people on the streets near a robbery or something get pulled in every day and simply can NOT defend themselves.

How in the world is it fair that a prosecutors office, with unlimited funds, can go against a public defender making 28 thousand a year for 12 hours a day work?  You tell me.  At least when the rich get accused of a crime (oj) they have the cash to defend themselves and then the whole universe screams out about his "high paid" legal team.  I guarantee you one thing, as much money as OJ had, the State of california had more.

What's fair is fair, both the da office and the defendant should be given a attorney at the same level and work load.

Do you think defense attorneys success or not depends on the clients being innocent?  NO, it simply depends on the ability of the attorney to "tell a good story", convince and mislead and hope the jury buys it.  THE SAME GOES FOR THE PROSECUTORS.  The state WANTS people in jail!  If a new DA is unsuccessful at putting people in jail he WILL be replaced!

It's a bs game...and that is all it is to the attorneys, a b.s. GAME.  

You raise some legitimate points, but some have to be put in context.  The Innocence Project has freed people wrongly convicted of crimes, but it is a comparative handful in light of the thousands of convictions that are upheld on appeal. 

There is definitely not a level playing field when it comes to resources, but federal prosecutors and federal public defenders are paid the same salaries.  State prosecutors and public defenders in Hawaii make the same too.  Not sure about other states.
 

[legbreaker]

If I was a juror, I would vote to convict if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.  I would vote to acquit if the prosecution did not prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's the choice every juror has.  Sometimes there is "jury nullification," where they ignore the evidence, but they all have a choice based on the evidence. 

It doesn't have to be a situation where you allow a guilty man to go free to keep an innocent man from going to prison.  Neither situation is acceptable.  Would you want a child predator to walk . . . and live in your neighborhood? 

Your last question has been asked to me by others that I've had this discussion with.  IF the evidence (usually if a crime was legitamitly committed there is evidence) suggested guilt I would vote guilty, however, if the evidence, or lack thereof, did not show guilt i would vote not guilty. Now if it was my kid or a loved ones kid and I knew they were guilty, but were set free I would simply have to find other ways to take care of a situation like that.  For instance, if i were Mr. Goldman and I knew my kid was murdered by OJ then I would have to say that, somehow or another, oj wouldn't be playing golf (or anything) these days.  God bless Goldman and Nicoles family.

The child predator example is a great one because they are the among worst offenders imaginable.  Therefore, I say 1 strike and your out....NO parole on a sexual crime against a person (the date rape and friends or aquaintances thing would need evidence, however).  With that in mind, do you know how many times a child has gone to their parents and said the coach or bus driver example) has touched them or something and later found to be lying and made up for either personal thing or attention?  many peoples lives have been ruined by this.  i once saw a Highway to Heaven show where the bus driver was accussed of this.  He was fired, of course neighbors and society turned against him, children were insulted at school and yet, it was FALSE.  What a shame because you can not get back a reputation after accusations like that...

[legbreaker]

You raise some legitimate points, but some have to be put in context.  The Innocence Project has freed people wrongly convicted of crimes, but it is a comparative handful in light of the thousands of convictions that are upheld on appeal. 

There is definitely not a level playing field when it comes to resources, but federal prosecutors and federal public defenders are paid the same salaries.  State prosecutors and public defenders in Hawaii make the same too.  Not sure about other states.

That's interesting, I was unaware of that.  My brother had a public defender that was reading anothers chart and spoke of how overloaded he was and how little he got out of college.  That was Ny.  Thanks for the info.
 

[Dos Equis]

Your last question has been asked to me by others that I've had this discussion with.  IF the evidence (usually if a crime was legitamitly committed there is evidence) suggested guilt I would vote guilty, however, if the evidence, or lack thereof, did not show guilt i would vote not guilty. Now if it was my kid or a loved ones kid and I knew they were guilty, but were set free I would simply have to find other ways to take care of a situation like that.  For instance, if i were Mr. Goldman and I knew my kid was murdered by OJ then I would have to say that, somehow or another, oj wouldn't be playing golf (or anything) these days.  God bless Goldman and Nicoles family.

The child predator example is a great one because they are the among worst offenders imaginable.  Therefore, I say 1 strike and your out....NO parole on a sexual crime against a person (the date rape and friends or aquaintances thing would need evidence, however).  With that in mind, do you know how many times a child has gone to their parents and said the coach or bus driver example) has touched them or something and later found to be lying and made up for either personal thing or attention?  many peoples lives have been ruined by this.  i once saw a Highway to Heaven show where the bus driver was accussed of this.  He was fired, of course neighbors and society turned against him, children were insulted at school and yet, it was FALSE.  What a shame because you can not get back a reputation after accusations like that...

I completely agree about 1 and done for pedophiles.  From everything I've read and heard, they cannot be rehabilitated.  The recidivism rate is astronomical. 

But you do have to be very careful.  Someone just murdered his neighbor who he thought was molesting his little kid.  Turns out the kid may not have been molested.  Made national headlines.  And there is that infamous McMartin Pre School trial in California years ago.  A witch hunt.  But those are fondling cases with no physical evidence. 

[OzmO]

Facts?  Ozmo, I just mentioned the CURRENT Duke case.....I now assume you think there IS legit evidence of a crime?  Furthermore, if you want facts, simply look to the innocence project and attorney, Barry Sheck.  They are handling mostly DNA based crimes and believe it or not lots of people are in prison even though THEIR DNA was not on or around the victim, BUT anothers WAS.  That's lots of facts right there, but that only is a small fraction of the many poor people in prison and wrongfully convicted of crimes.

Speaking of the Barry Schecks' innocence project, there recently was a man in Brooklyn released after 18 years in prison.  In the EARLY to mid 90's it was declared his DNA did not match the profile of the perpetrator, YET the head da (woman) refused to gie him a new trial or even respond to his case....until Barry Scheck got it 10 years later.  She recently ran for office in CT and I think she lost...of course most could see that a person like that doesn't belong in a position to make decisions.

These are all serious crimes.  We can not even imagine how many poor people on the streets near a robbery or something get pulled in every day and simply can NOT defend themselves.

How in the world is it fair that a prosecutors office, with unlimited funds, can go against a public defender making 28 thousand a year for 12 hours a day work?  You tell me.  At least when the rich get accused of a crime (oj) they have the cash to defend themselves and then the whole universe screams out about his "high paid" legal team.  I guarantee you one thing, as much money as OJ had, the State of california had more.

What's fair is fair, both the da office and the defendant should be given a attorney at the same level and work load.

Do you think defense attorneys success or not depends on the clients being innocent?  NO, it simply depends on the ability of the attorney to "tell a good story", convince and mislead and hope the jury buys it.  THE SAME GOES FOR THE PROSECUTORS.  The state WANTS people in jail!  If a new DA is unsuccessful at putting people in jail he WILL be replaced!

It's a bs game...and that is all it is to the attorneys, a b.s. GAME. 

Sorry,  I meant statistics

ONE case doesn't speak for millions

[Hugo Chavez]

If I was a juror, I would vote to convict if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.  I would vote to acquit if the prosecution did not prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's the choice every juror has.  Sometimes there is "jury nullification," where they ignore the evidence, but they all have a choice based on the evidence. 

It doesn't have to be a situation where you allow a guilty man to go free to keep an innocent man from going to prison.  Neither situation is acceptable.  Would you want a child predator to walk . . . and live in your neighborhood? 

do you have any idea how many juries do not do this and how many jurors are tired and under attack from the others and just give in to get the fuck out of there...  Last week they were enjoying their family time and this week they have several irritable strangers arguing with them. But above all, how common was it that evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, held from the defense, crime labs manipulating results... You say rare... I have read story after story after story of this happening, it is not as uncommon as you think.  Nobody wants the bad guy to go, but remember, when crap like this happens, that's exactly what they could be doing...

[Dos Equis]

do you have any idea how many juries do not do this and how many jurors are tired and under attack from the others and just give in to get the f**k out of there...  Last week they were enjoying their family time and this week they have several irritable strangers arguing with them. But above all, how common was it that evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, held from the defense, crime labs manipulating results... You say rare... I have read story after story after story of this happening, it is not as uncommon as you think.  Nobody wants the bad guy to go, but remember, when crap like this happens, that's exactly what they could be doing...

Yes I have an idea, because the overwhelming majority of criminal convictions are upheld on appeal.  This can include a review by the trial judge, an appeal to an intermediate court, and an appeal to a supreme court.  And in some cases you can start the appeals process all over again in federal court.   

I have heard of abuses too.  Of course they happen.  Yes you have crooked prosecutors.  They are the exception.  If you look at the numbers of criminal convictions that are overturned based on prosecutorial misconduct, we're talking about a handful. 

Go talk to any public defender and they will tell you that the vast majority of their clients are guilty.  Does that mean the system is perfect and innocent people are never charged and convicted of crimes?  Of course not.  But is there isn't an epidemic of wrongful criminal convictions. 

Now, if you want to talk about some of the issues legbreaker raised about an unequal playing field, that's a different story.  Federal prosecutors can use the FBI, DEA, INS, and a host of other agencies to do their leg work.  State prosecutors can use the local police and a bunch of state agencies too.  That gives them an advantage over their counterparts.  So, the system definitely benefits people who have money.           

[legbreaker]

I completely agree about 1 and done for pedophiles.  From everything I've read and heard, they cannot be rehabilitated.  The recidivism rate is astronomical. 

But you do have to be very careful.  Someone just murdered his neighbor who he thought was molesting his little kid.  Turns out the kid may not have been molested.  Made national headlines.  And there is that infamous McMartin Pre School trial in California years ago.  A witch hunt.  But those are fondling cases with no physical evidence. 

Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down « previous next »
  Reply  |  Notify  |  Mark unread  |  Send this topic  |  Print   
 
  Author Topic: Dad Kills Neighbor Accused of Molesting Girl  (Read 336 times) 
from august 30 topic

Beach Bum, i'm not sure if this is the story you were refering to.  If it is then you will see my post when it happened saying that (first they MUST determine truth and have evidence and not just the word).  I knew the guy did not do it from day 1, as you will see in my response, which a month or so later (as is in the topic discussion) was revealed to be the truth.  So I agree you must always know the truth and should never simply react or take the mother or father or kids word for it.  These accusations are part of the reason I will NOT convict a person based on heresay, eye witness or just word....evidence or no conviction.   

[Dos Equis]

Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down « previous next »
  Reply  |  Notify  |  Mark unread  |  Send this topic  |  Print   
 
  Author Topic: Dad Kills Neighbor Accused of Molesting Girl  (Read 336 times) 
from august 30 topic

Beach Bum, i'm not sure if this is the story you were refering to.  If it is then you will see my post when it happened saying that (first they MUST determine truth and have evidence and not just the word).  I knew the guy did not do it from day 1, as you will see in my response, which a month or so later (as is in the topic discussion) was revealed to be the truth.  So I agree you must always know the truth and should never simply react or take the mother or father or kids word for it.  These accusations are part of the reason I will NOT convict a person based on heresay, eye witness or just word....evidence or no conviction.   

This is the story.  You were right.