archenemy Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/23/dungeon.trial.ap/index.html Even if you have already raped a 12 year old, been convicted, have an underground bunker to store your pot, are awaiting burglery charges, and duck taped the girls you raped figuring that they'd die from lack of air; all you have to say is that the sex was consensual and BAM!!!! you win the case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 well, he can't escape karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 23, 2007 Author Share Posted April 23, 2007 I'm sure that makes those girls and their parents feel a whole lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 I don't see how a jurry could let the guy off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 well, he can't escape karma. Uhhh, he just did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 23, 2007 Author Share Posted April 23, 2007 well, he can't escape karma. Uhhh, he just did. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 I thought that it is impossible to give consent to someone over 21 years old if one is under the age of 18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 23, 2007 Author Share Posted April 23, 2007 It's probably difficult to say, "Sure, go ahead" when your mouth is duck taped. Just a logistic issue apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 watch "Suspect Zero" and you might feel better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/23/dungeon.trial.ap/index.html Even if you have already raped a 12 year old, been convicted, have an underground bunker to store your pot, are awaiting burglery charges, and duck taped the girls you raped figuring that they'd die from lack of air; all you have to say is that the sex was consensual and BAM!!!! you win the case! the article didn't have many details - were the girls found bound-up? how was there no physical evidence of rape? i'd like to assume the jury wasn't filled w/ lunatics or fools (though, having lived there for years, i realize i might be going out on a limb there) and so if they couldn't be convinced, the case must have been weak (it's not like homeboy had cochrane and the "chewbacca defense" on his side). sure looks like he's from the mother-of-all-secesh-states though, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 time for street justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 I thought that it is impossible to give consent to someone over 21 years old if one is under the age of 18. These rules vary by state. They are close to each other....don't know the rules in this state. Sometimes, all you have to be is 16 for the legal age of consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 You don't know what information was admissible to the jury. They may well have not known anything about prior convictions or other history, as well as what other information may have been provided about the victims. Having just served on a jury for a domestic violence case, I was surprised at how little evidence was actually provided. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard of proof, it sounds like the prosecution just didn't make their case. Four hours of deliberation is not very much either, so odds are the jury was in substantial agreement already when deliberations began. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 24, 2007 Author Share Posted April 24, 2007 That's a good point. I guess those records become public after the trial though, right? It would be interesting to find that out. I can't imagine how horrible it would feel to be on that jury, not know about the previous conviction, let the guy go, then find out what everyone else already knew--that he has a history of this. It is kind of strange that the mental history of a guy who wants to buy a gun is considered fair game for all to know; but previous convictions (which are public record--just like the mental health thing) are mum. I understand the theory behind it--giving the accused a "fair" chance. But if one guy has to live with the consequences of past behavior, shouldn't another guy also have to live with those consequences? It seems a little confusing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dt_3pin Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 That's a good point. I guess those records become public after the trial though, right? It would be interesting to find that out. I can't imagine how horrible it would feel to be on that jury, not know about the previous conviction, let the guy go, then find out what everyone else already knew--that he has a history of this. Generally speaking, evidence of prior convictions is inadmissible as character or propensity evidence. Such evidence, however, is often admissible for other limited purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 24, 2007 Author Share Posted April 24, 2007 Yes, I understand that. My question is "Do we really think that is fair to the people who have to make the decision on whether the person is guilty or not". Why would a person's past be considered relevant when buying a gun, but not when deciding whether they are guilty of criminal behavior (especially when that behavior fits the same pattern as previous guilty behavior). Am I the only one who thinks that is a little strange? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dt_3pin Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Okay, let's flip the question around. Take someone who committed a few robberies as a young adult, but then reforms themself. They are then wrongly accused of a new robbery, which they did not commit. The evidence before the jury is the defendant's prior convictions and some circumstantial evidence (wrong place/wrong time for example). Would it be fair to convict that person based largely on the prejudicial influence of their past actions? It would certainly make convictions (not necessarily correct convictions) easier for the state. The reason character/propoensity evidence is inadmissible is exactly because of fairness considerations - it is usually more prejudicial than it is probative of actual criminal intent and conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 24, 2007 Author Share Posted April 24, 2007 I could be convinced to agree with that. So then, taking that a bit further, let's say someone went through a rough patch in their life. Later, they got their shit together and wanted to take up target shooting. According to your sense of justice (which is totally reasonable), this person should be allowed to buy a gun, even though they have had a past of "mental defectiveness" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 The reform rate for Sexual crimes is very low. I noticed that the story said he was a "convicted sex offender ". Since he wasn't convicted this time, it's safe to say this is from a previous time. " Hinson was convicted of raping a 12 year old girl in 1991". Safe to say that for times like these, we as taxpayers should pony up additional money and keep jackasses like this locked up. Something which the jury was not probably exposed to. BUT, the system will try and find other ways to grind this jackass down and watch his ass. Story said: "He said they made up the story so they would be able to take drugs from the underground room, which he used to store marijuana." Any bets on how many years he gets for the marijuana charges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 plus the gun charges don't worry arch, he'll get his in the end. Everything balances out. There are worse things than prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dt_3pin Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Your point is well taken Arch, but I think there is a distinction. Despite what gun rights advocates argue, the 2d amendment right to bear arms is limited rather than absolute (as are all constitutional rights - don't yell fire in a theater or take peyote for your religion). One could argue that prohibiting some felons from purchasing guns in an extension of their punishement (commit crime = go to jail + can't buy guns). Still, there is a distinction between limiting gun purchases on past convictions and basing new convictions on past convictions. The former involves limiting an already limited constitutional right. The later potentially subjects individuals to all sorts of sanctions (jail, life in jail, execution). In other words, the consequences are quite different, potentially by an order of magnitude. But you note a good quandry - limiting gun purchases is really a preventative meaure based on propensity - but it's an inconsistency I can live with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 24, 2007 Author Share Posted April 24, 2007 I agree with many of the current limitations on gun ownership (obviously--otherwise I wouldn't agree with background checks at all). But I see that you get the gist of my argument--which was not very articulate--that the inconsistancy is a bit vexing. I don't think that everything has to be consistant, but the logic behind it should make sense. And I suppose I just don't fully understand the logic behind not being allowed to know the public records of an accused person but being allowed to know the public records of a gun buyer when making a decision that will impact that person. Thanks for your posts though, I appreciate how you put things and provoke thoughts and discussion!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 this animal should be tossed in a meat grinder and his remains fed to stray dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 actually, they should lock him (duct taped up, of course)in a room with armed family members of the two girls... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 first, remove all body hair by waxing technique, but with duct tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.