• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Man spends 5 years in prison for rape - accuser admits she FAKED IT

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I always believe that if a condom gets opened, then you should not be able to change your mind. Am I wrong? 😉
 
Ninjahedge said:
As much as I hate this, you also have to look at the facts.

More women are raped and either never report it (fear) or it never gets tried and convicted (not enough evidence).

Women DO have power in this, but they are also looked at as "damaged goods" by many in this day and age when they admit they have been raped (one of the reasons many women do not want to come forward).

The biggest deterrent is the defense most used. "She wanted it", "She said yes/led him on" etc etc. Unfortunately, this still exists.

Untill we GENUINELY level the playing field, you will get people abusing it. Weakening the rape laws because of a few malignant individuals will hurt more victims than help.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may our entire legal system is set up such that sometimes criminals do walk free but we don't put away innocent people. Any situation without evidence that only has one person's story vs. another's should end up with reasonable doubt and the person walking.

I think we should get rid of the plea agreement. Too easy for prosecutors to lie and present "overwhelming evidence" that will land you in jail for 40+ years so you take the plea even though they had no evidence. I think it has already been decided by SCotUS but allowing prosecutors to lie is really a complete injustice. I know locking people up is hard, but it should be as the alternative of locking up innocent people is also devastating.
 
That article says the DA won't press charges because it's "too difficult to prove". How the fuck is it too difficult? IT'S HER OWN VOICE SAYING SHE WAS FULL OF SHIT! My grandmother could prosecute that slam dunk!
 
uclaLabrat said:
That article says the DA won't press charges because it's "too difficult to prove". How the fuck is it too difficult? IT'S HER OWN VOICE SAYING SHE WAS FULL OF SHIT! My grandmother could prosecute that slam dunk!
Click to expand...

That video may not be admissible in court, because it was made without her knowledge and permission.
 
sixone said:
That video may not be admissible in court, because it was made without her knowledge and permission.
Click to expand...
Yup, California is a two-party consent state.

If the prosecutor really wanted to be a dick about it, he could hit the kid up for a violation of the wiretapping statute.
 
CountZero said:
I think we should get rid of the plea agreement. Too easy for prosecutors to lie and present "overwhelming evidence" that will land you in jail for 40+ years so you take the plea even though they had no evidence. I think it has already been decided by SCotUS but allowing prosecutors to lie is really a complete injustice. I know locking people up is hard, but it should be as the alternative of locking up innocent people is also devastating.
Click to expand...

I agree with this point. And not just with respect to rape cases either. Plea bargaining is a horrible concept. In the name of saving the justice system money, it replaces what should be an attempt to rationally establish the truth of what happened (and hence to achieve a just outcome) with a ridiculous game of who-blinks-first/chicken.

You might as well have those involved play rock-paper-sissors to decide the verdict. Except its worse, because, logically, who is going to be most adept at playing the plea-bargain game? Those who play it a lot and are familiar with how it works. In other words, prosecutors and professional criminals. The innocent person caught up in the system for the first time is likely to play it badly.

Hence its pretty much inevitable that on average its going to allow the guilty habitual criminal to get off more lightly than he/she should, and more-often-than-not scare the law-abiding unlucky citizen into accepting punishment for something they didn't do (at least if they aren't rich and don't have an expensive lawyer).

It should only be used for minor traffic and parking offences, IMO. But I guess nobody wants to pay for a decent justice system.
 
I never believed that there were any innocent man in prison.
I had a old cop tell me once that they got a ton of rape accusations that are proven to be false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top