Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
archenemy

Wow, the old "she wanted it" still works!

Recommended Posts

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

 

I don't think you can directly compare the two, at least in the way you are suggesting. In a trial, you are deciding whether a crime occurred or not, the simple fact of which is not influenced by separate events.

 

However the court is allowed to know the public records of an accused person--once it has decided that a crime has occurred. Then you move into sentencing, in which previous history most certainly is taken into account. There the question is not "what happened" but "how do we treat this person," and the latter is more related to gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all fine and dandy, but in this case, its totally relevant regardless of what the fucking laws say...

 

bastard ought to be shot on sight...

 

perhaps the jury is letting him out on the street in the hopes that his ass gets killed...just musing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the point of having laws or courts or juries if we're just going to administer our own private justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
talk to me if your daughter is involved...otherwise, stfu...

you're not george bush I and i'm not dukakis, beyotch, so answer the goddamn question - why spend all the time, money and energy on the judicial branch if we're not going to accept it's work?

 

and to answer your question - sure, i'd kill the asshole who defiled my daughter - but i wouldn't bitch about going to jail for it either. we can not live in fucking afghanistan where all justice is private and blood-fueds last centuries - the state must be the impartial and fair arbiter and it must strictly enforce it's monopoly on force and murder or we'll all be extras on a large scale reproduction of "deadwood"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't ask a question, so fuck off...

 

yeah...this trial sure was "impartial"...

Edited by RuMR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's the point of having laws or courts or juries if we're just going to administer our own private justice?

 

the guy admitted to banging the 12 year olds. it was just "consensual". He's a sick fuck who should die. period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the guy admitted to banging the 12 year olds. it was just "consensual". He's a sick fuck who should die. period.

 

Are you talking about the 17-year-olds?

 

Yes he's a sick fuck, but it's up to South Carolina and its justice system to decide whether he should die, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's the point of having laws or courts or juries if we're just going to administer our own private justice?

 

the guy admitted to banging the 12 year olds. it was just "consensual". He's a sick fuck who should die. period.

i have no problem w/ killing child molestors or at least locking them up for life - and there'd be plenty of space for them if we decriminalized drugs :toad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's the point of having laws or courts or juries if we're just going to administer our own private justice?

 

the guy admitted to banging the 12 year olds. it was just "consensual". He's a sick fuck who should die. period.

i have no problem w/ killing child molestors or at least locking them up for life - and there'd be plenty of space for them if we decriminalized drugs :toad:

 

I'd agree... depends what drugs you are talking about... (Mary Jane definitely)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

does article mention at all that the girls said

NO?????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, that is a really good question. If they didn't say no, they could not have possibly been raped. Obviously, the guy knew this and is a criminal mastermind---which is why he duct taped their mouths. That way, they couldn't say no and therefore he could not have raped them.

 

You know, now that I think about it, the article didn't mention what those girls were wearing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if i was sitting on a jury, i'd appreciate some evidence indicating the defendant was guilty beyond 1 person's testimony - call me a free-thinker - the justice system's got the baseball rule: tie goes to the runner. if it's just 1 person's word against another, i'd go w/ the defendant.

 

not saying, btw, that was the case here - the article hinted at the existence of evidence beyond the girls testimony, that's why i was curious what it was, 'cuz the guy looks guilty as fawk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOES HE FLOAT?

 

Seriously, shit like this happens everyday. I was on a jury for a case where we could *tell* something wasn't been said and the defendant was an obvious scumbag (case was spousal abuse). After we found the defendant not guilty based on the evidence, the judge came in and told us the stuff that we couldn't hear because it wasn't admissable as evidence...and the guy was beating his wife all the time, she would call the cops, and then later would not testify against him...it was like the fourth time it had happened. All that was admissable was the police report and the officers testimony (officer didn't show up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case attracted national attention when South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said during a four-day manhunt that Hinson could have been indefinitely committed to a state program for sexually violent predators. He servied a nine-year prison sentence for a 1991 conviction for the rape of a 12-year-old girl.

 

Two review committees had recommended that Hinson be placed in the program, warning he could commit a future sex crime.

 

But Judge Edward Cottingham rejected the plan and set Hinson free. After Hinson's arrest, McMaster argued it was that crucial mistake on Cottingham's part that paved the way for Hinson to assault the teens in the dungeon-like space beneath his home.

 

Cottingham, a retired but active judge, has said he does not remember the 2000 case. Last year, Hinson appeared before Cottingham as McMaster presented his notice to seek a sentence of life without parole in the new charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOES HE FLOAT?

 

Seriously, shit like this happens everyday. I was on a jury for a case where we could *tell* something wasn't been said and the defendant was an obvious scumbag (case was spousal abuse). After we found the defendant not guilty based on the evidence, the judge came in and told us the stuff that we couldn't hear because it wasn't admissable as evidence...and the guy was beating his wife all the time, she would call the cops, and then later would not testify against him...it was like the fourth time it had happened. All that was admissable was the police report and the officers testimony (officer didn't show up).

so were you just not able to convince the others on the jury or did you not vote w/ your gut? i'm pretty much fine w/ jurists ruling on their instincts, even if it's a mono y mono kinda thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOES HE FLOAT?

 

Seriously, shit like this happens everyday. I was on a jury for a case where we could *tell* something wasn't been said and the defendant was an obvious scumbag (case was spousal abuse). After we found the defendant not guilty based on the evidence, the judge came in and told us the stuff that we couldn't hear because it wasn't admissable as evidence...and the guy was beating his wife all the time, she would call the cops, and then later would not testify against him...it was like the fourth time it had happened. All that was admissable was the police report and the officers testimony (officer didn't show up).

so were you just not able to convince the others on the jury or did you not vote w/ your gut? i'm pretty much fine w/ jurists ruling on their instincts, even if it's a mono y mono kinda thing.

 

I was 19 at the time, and that was not what the judge told us as a jury. He said to pass a verdict based on the evidence we were presented. We deliberated for long time, but based on the evidence alone we could not convict. I and one other person took a lot of convincing, but based on the judges direction, there was not enough evidence to convict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×