Pardon My English - "Conservative New & Opinion...and juicy tidbits from rape cases"

Steve - I know you're upset, but -

1) This person is on trial and has not been convicted yet.

2) The accused have rights.

3) The accused's attorney will do what they can to defend those rights.

4) The judge hasn't ruled on the motion yet.

---

Are you looking for something to be upset about? This is simply the way criminal trials work.

Steve: this is all about due process and the rule of law. Simply because someone is accused of a horrific crime doesn't mean the process should be turned upside down. That's a mob-mentality.

"I THINK he's guilty, so let's dispense with applicable law and hang him now!" is absurd.

No, apply the law fairly and give him his full degree of rights and IF convicted, THEN punish him in accordance with the law.

Points taken, Matt. But all too often the system works against the victim and in favor of the criminal and that's exactly what I think is happening in this case. And the irony of this whole case is just maddening: The guy stands accused of raping the little girl and the evidence is overwhelming. His brother then is accused of raping and murdering her. Again, the evidence is overwhelming. Because she was raped and murdered by this guy's brother (without much of a doubt) his attorney alleges a possible violation of his rights.

And, I might point out, a guy who is pretty clearly guilty, stands to go free if a judge decides not to make an exception to the law in this case. Without this interview, what other evidence do they have?

Steve - You're basing too much of this on your own very general opinions.

"but all too often the system works against the victim and in favor of the criminal"

Any proof to that one? What about situation where it works against the criminal? Thats never in favor of the victim because someone innocent goes to jail.

Also, you contradict yourself by saying the evidence is overwhelming yet it all rests on one contested video tape.

It appears to me that you take an interest in this sort of thing because of the moral issues involved. Unfortunately, the bigger the case, the more brutal the crime, the less likely justice is to be accurate.

Its a big part of the reason why I'm against the death penalty.

The less likely justice is to be accurate? I know you're not saying what I think you saying, because what I think your saying is ridiculous. It seems you are saying the more horrible the crime, the LESS appropriate the death penalty is in the interest of 'justice'?

The only way I could agree with the statement that the more horrible the crime, the less just the resulting sentance, is if you are arguing that our punishments are too soft.

I'm saying that particularly in bigger cases, trials can become quite warped. Often the pressure and enthousiasm to "nail the bastard" overrides careful examination of the facts.

The OJ Simpson case is a good example. I don't have an opinion whether the guy is guilty or not, but man, what a circus! How many clowns are required to deliver high profile justice?

Err..well OK. But OJ got off, so it wasn't a 'nail the bastard' mentality that ruined that trial because he wasn't nailed. I'm not sure what the hell it was, but it was bad. Point taken.

Matt:

The evidence is this: The guy has done this type of thing before and the girl gives a very detailed account of him doing it to her. That's overwhelming evidence. We're talking about quality here, not quantity. And I really don't have the time or space here to list all the times I know of that the system failed, but here's a few:

1. James Meach, guy who was let off for "insanity" for beating a grocery boy to death with a club is let out on work release from the mental institution nine years later only to shoot four kids through the head.

3. James Bentley, a known pedophile, does it again to Jetseta Gage.

4. Roger Bentley, a known pedophile who apparently raped and killed this time.

5. John Couey, a known pedophile who raped and killed the last time.

6. The guy who killed Sara Lunde whose name escapes me.

Do you want me to go on? Our justice system fails crime victims time and time again. Now it's your turn. Give me a rational explanation for opposing the death penalty for people like Roger Bentley, James Meach, John Couey, the guy who killed Sara Lunde.

Steve - Just because you can cite examples where the system has failed does not mean that the system as a whole is a failure. Yes, these things are awful but that doesn't mean that it is the system's fault.

I doubt you're paying as much attention to the sucess stories.

I'll give you a dead cold logical reason for not executing people and there's just no argument against it - its too expensive, these people aren't worth it.

Matt, if it wasn't on such a sickening subject, it'd be downright hilarious. "Just because you can cite examples where the system has failed does not mean that the system as a whole is a failure. Yes, these things are awful but that doesn't mean it is the systems fault." If only you felt similarly in regards to what we're doing in Iraq. All you do is cite a few examples of what you think is wrong, and therefore it's all wrong... I think Steve is on pretty firm ground here.

Brit, it's a simple matter of placing a value on human life. Silly me. In my opinion, being an atheist is all the more reason to revere life, because it is all we have. Quite frankly speaking, if I was a christian, my respect for life would be significantly less, because in the end everyone lives on, and in the end god makes sure we all get what we deserve, so it really doesn't matter as much. In the end, innocent souls would be preserved, and evil monsters would face a punishment worse then we can even imagine.

But, I digress. Because this wasn't what we were arguing about. Brit you seemed to have missed the points of the discussion. I spoke quite passionately, yes, against the abortion OF MY CHILD, and I stand by that. This was brought up because I disagree with the concept that the women and her alone somehow owns this peice of property and may dispose of it. I wasn't speaking of all abortions.

The majority of the argument however, has been about the status-quo method of trying to prevent them by preventing unplanned pregnancies by throwing condoms at people. You missed that as well.

NYMaggie, so much for an open discussion. You, and everyone else have completely ignored my argument and just continue with the same old spiel.

Would any of you not stop to consider what I'm saying? I am telling you that you may inadvertantly increase unwanted pregnancies with your method, but you can't be bothered to pay attention to that, or even reality, you're too busy planning your fantasy world where 0 unwanted pregnancies occur.

Woops. Wrong thread.

MJ- which is the right thread, I'm interested...

the common sense of common ground

Doug - Anyone who is against the iraq war can tell you what was wrong with the PROCESS that took us to war.

Steve has this perverse interest in rape and murder cases. He doesn't talk about systematic problems, just terrible events. If he could show what mistake was made and how it should be fixed I might even back him.

The only thing that he's proven is that some violent and sexual offenders will violate again. Is that 10% of them or 0.001% of them? Still, he's not interested in this even though it would lead to a real understanding of the problem.

Matt, I know what you think about the war, that's not the point- it's your inconsistancy of logic that's the point. Read carefully.