View Poll Results: Should there be sex offense convictions based on accusers word without corroboration?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes -- more then now.

    2 6.06%
  • Yes -- keep current system.

    1 3.03%
  • Yes -- in very rare cases.

    2 6.06%
  • No.

    28 84.85%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    Please list the ones this has happened to.

    I realize our system of justice isn't perfect, but I think overall the people who run it are doing the best they can.
    I generally agree, but I have the least trust of DAs who sell themselves as tough on crime, especially in conservative/racist communities. There is a list of people previously on death row who were later exonerated earlier in this thread. If you read about their cases, or the cases of other people released as innocent years after being convicted (see Project Innocence), you'll see that often it was new DNA evidence that cleared their name, but in many cases they were originally convicted in a travesty of a trial with some combination of biased judge and/or jury, incompetant or uncaring defense, and/or prosecutors or police withholding exculpatory evidence. In many cases, judges and prosecutors have actively resisted reopening cases even when significant new evidence, such as DNA findings or improperly withheld evidence, are found after a trial.

    It should also be noted that prosecutors and police organizations have fought hard, and usually successfully, to block laws that improve the procedures used in interogations and witness idenification of suspects. That fact makes alone me think too many of them are more interested in winning cases than convicting only the guilty.
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 07-04-14 at 05:13 PM.

  2. #62
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by SCitizen View Post
    Fortunately I have never been the victim and I have never been the accused.

    As a victim advocate you probably have more knowledge then I do.

    But a sex offense defense attorney may have as many horror stories -- how they lost innocent clients to conviction.
    Every client is innocent. That is the law of the land, innocent until proven guilty. There are reasons the jury is there. One of those reasons is to determine who is lying. There are certain rules that must be followed in defending any client. Being a public defender and believing your client committed the crime is not justification for not following those rules. In fact, if the attorney does not vigorously defend the client, and misses even one procedural requirement, then the entire conviction can be overturned on appeal. Fact: Appeal does not retry the case. Appeal is on the procedural issues.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  3. #63
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    I generally agree, but I have the least trust of DAs who sell themselves as tough on crime, especially in conservative/racist communities. There is a list of people previously on death row who were later exonerated earlier in this thread. If you read about their cases, or the cases of other people released as innocent years after being convicted (see Project Innocence), you'll see that often it was new DNA evidence that cleared their name, but in many cases they were originally convicted in a travesty of a trial with some combination of biased judge and/or jury, incompetant or uncaring defense, and/or prosecutors or police withholding exculpatory evidence. In many cases, judges and prosecutors have actively resisted reopening cases even when significant new evidence, such as DNA findings or improperly withheld evidence, are found after a trial.

    It should also be noted that prosecutors and police organizations have fought hard, and usually successfully, to block laws that improve the procedures used in interogations and witness idenification of suspects. That fact makes alone me think too many of them are more interested in winning cases than convicting only the guilty.
    EVERY lawyer wants to win his case. It would be stupid to think you would go hire a lawyer and he would not want to win the case he has brought on your behalf. So you really need to think about what you are saying, because it doesn't come across very smart. I think it is nice that people are being exonerated by DNA and I support that the courts are giving ear to this particular bit of post conviction litigation. But at the time they were convicted they all got what was available at the time. They all got their 6th amendment right, and the all got the expectation that their lawyer would competently defend the case, and if he/she did not, then they had the right to appeal to have the case overturned, and even bring suit against the lawyer for malpractice. I think there may have been a time in this country when the deck was stacked against any defendant, certainly the fact that we borrowed many of our laws from England a feudal country didn't help on that account. BUT, since Miranda, I think the playing field has been leveled and IMO the laws are now stacked against the prosecution. Considerably so. But I can tell you this. If you confess your crime to your attorney, he/she will have to follow all the procedural rules to avoid an ineffective assistance lawsuit, but the countenance of any law loving and abiding person, even a lawyer is going to be different if he knows you to be guilty. There is a situation going on in my own family right now, and because it is currently in litigation, I cannot discuss it. But once it is settled, I plan to post the experience everywhere I can so people will know what they are dealing with. And that's all I can say about it at this time. If I'm alive when this matter concludes, you can rest assured you will read about it here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

    Edited to add: I remember when Miranda came down. Pretty much every law abiding citizen thought the country had been handed to criminals. Over the last 50 years, I have seen a complete reversal of that thinking, and with the current overzealousness of some of our law enforcement people, most people WANT every person who has been accused of a crime to be able to avail himself of all his rights.
    Last edited by Maenad; 07-04-14 at 06:11 PM.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    EVERY lawyer wants to win his case. It would be stupid to think you would go hire a lawyer and he would not want to win the case he has brought on your behalf. So you really need to think about what you are saying, because it doesn't come across very smart. ....if he/she did not, then they had the right to appeal to have the case overturned, and even bring suit against the lawyer for malpractice.....
    An innocent person serving years in prison or being executed is a tragedy no matter how rare it is, and it is not all that rare in the USA. Many of the people found innocent after conviction had histories of incompetent and/or uncaring defense. It happens most often with low income defendants stuck with overworked public defenders, lower priced attorneys out of their league, or burnt out/indifferent and/or overworked attorneys. There are reports of defense attorneys falling asleep in the courtroom, failing to raise obvious objections or issues, and being too friendly with the prosecution. Appealing and/or suing a defense attorney is an extremely expensive and slow process, that is especially hard for a low income person who is in prison.

  5. #65
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    09-14-16 @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,415

    Re: Should those accused os sex offences be convicted on "he said she said" evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Every trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before conviction. Corroborative evidence is a very broad term. Eye witnesses? Not required. DNA evidence? Not required. Cuts and bruises? Not required. It's the totality of the circumstances that speak. If a person is found guilty of a sexual offense, it's because there was corroborative evidence. We don't convict people based upon a mere accusation.
    No its because the bitch changed her mind, and the femi nazis lobbied the laws....................

    PS
    I was assualted by my wife in a divorce. I called 911. They HUNG UP on me.

    they came out and arrested ME...................the victim.

    No fighting, no conviction.
    time to put nad end to this femi-nazi BS.

    Then of course there is the north dakota? man that was convicted of statitory rape of HIS LEGAL WIFE
    when they had a kid after being married. Funny how the marrage and rape laws dont jive.................
    Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why,
    Ian Fletcher

    https://www.numbersusa.org/

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •