EQnoble
Well-known member
The problem is how they determine who is guilty, if it is the guys word vs the girls and you have a jury, you have a guilty man.I'm going under the assumption that these individuals are 100% guilty and that the victims are indeed victims of terrible, terrible crimes.
At one point this man was guilty until they found he wasn't and released him from jail..
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/new_dna_evidence_sets_hartford_man_free/
this guy too
James Tillman served 18 years in Connecticut prisons before DNA testing proved his innocence. Last week, the state legislature approved a bill awarding him $5 million in compensation for the injustice he suffered. The bill now goes to Governor Jodi Rell, who has said she will sign it.
The only reason they were released is because there actually was dna evidence on file...if there wasn't they would still be in jail. How many other people are in jail based on shoddy evidence because of accusations that were false. That is an unknown but I bet it is a lot.
Hartford Courant, 5/21/07
I think the solution to prosecuting actual rapists and sentencing them in a way where they can not hurt anyone anymore would involve taking more seriously the possibly that the girl is lying and until there is actual cold evidence not prosecute either party. When one proves the other is lying with facts and evidence , the other should go to jail forever.I'm still against this if the individuals are already done paying their debt to society. It is my view that if said debt has been paid, then that person is as free as is allowed. If it was a felony there are restrictions already set in place, such as voting in some places and gun ownership. If the crime was not labeled a felony (highly doubtful in this in stance) then that person is as free as you or I.
If things worked like that...there would be less false accusations and that would free up resources to do a more thorough investigation on the remaining accusations which would probably lead to less innocent people going to jail and also remove people who really are rapists from society.
If you don't like this, then you need to work on getting the punishment phase changed. It would be like telling you you have a fine to pay and then after you've paid it off they tell you that you owe more just because. You know of empirical instances where the current laws didn't work? I agree. Sometimes these things slip through the cracks. But there are also instances where people really are rehabilitated. What about these people? You have to remember that prison and our justice system is SUPPOSED to be about rehabilitation, not revenge.
The only problem is jail does not rehabilitate most inmates at all. I know a few people who served lengthy bids, they came out more criminal than they went in. Pretty much you adapt to survive in your surroundings or you don't survive
and jail is no different.
But like you said there will be people who realize that they were wrong and that they don't want the life they used to lead, and those people would have no future as an honest citizen if they are publicly shamed for the rest of their life. And then there is that person who wasn't a rapist and let's say was 20 years old having consensual sex with a 17 year old, putting a sign on their lawn is overkill and WILL ruin their life. Technically though, they are a sex offender so if these signs are mandated they will get one.
I know how you are going to read this - that I feel for the criminal and not the victim - but to me in this case both are actually immaterial. It's not about whether the signs in question are the right thing to do. I say they are not because it's a form of double-jeopardy, which is unconstitutional.
I understand EXACTLY what you are saying...and it is completely logical and sound. You can't be tried for the same crime twice, just like you can't be punished after you have served your sentence.
The other thing is the punishment itself is unconstitutional...
Under Amendment VIII of the US constitution cruel and unusual punishment is outlawed. Lifetime public humiliation of someone convicted of statutory rape definitely qualifies as a gross violation of constitutional law.