- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,259
- Reaction score
- 1,313
- Location
- By the water.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It is safe to say that there have been several prosecutors who knowingly allowed innocent people to die or spend their life in prison so the DA won't risk losing the next election. They should be charged with murder when there is good evidence that they withheld evidence or otherwise knowingly allowed an innocent person to be wrongly convicted.
There are 774,600 Registered Sex Offenders in the U.S. and its Territories. About 220,000 sex offenders are in prisons and jails and about 12,000 more are in involuntary commitment institutions. Many or most of these offenders have been convicted on the accuser's word without other corroboration. Before mid 1980s corroboration was needed for conviction. Many sex offense prosecutors consider the ability to convict without corroboration a great victory. On the other hand, only about 16% of the accused are convicted.
In my opinion, corroborative evidence should be required for criminal convictions -- especially if the punishment is life long. Nevertheless, my opinion may be in minority.
Please list who has been convicted on 'a mere accusation.' Having worked with many victims, I know of no instance where there was a 'witness' to the event as rapists don't rape in front of other people. However, the victims have been questioned, and requestioned by, not only authorities, but also people who are experts at the manifestations of that type of trauma. Some were incested and impregnated by their fathers and the children were DNA tested and shown to be their father's children. You may think incest is quite OK without a witness, but in the states where I have lived and work it is illegal and if the woman is a minor, then that is statutory rape even if the victim is willing, which they are not. Deal with it. And keep it in your pants if you don't want to go to jail for rape.
I have known of cases (not specifically rape) where people have been convicted solely on the word of a single other person.
I haven't objected to DNA-proof.
I'm not sexually active.
Please list those cases. That should not be difficult as crimes are public record.
I don't know enough about the cases I've heard of to find the records for them.
See here though:
The Innocence Project - Reevaluating Lineups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of a Misidentification
The word of a single witness is legally sufficient for conviction.
So what you are posting is nothing more than gossip and conjecture.
Having worked with many victims, I know of no instance where there was a 'witness' to the event as rapists don't rape in front of other people. However, the victims have been questioned, and requestioned by, not only authorities, but also people who are experts at the manifestations of that type of trauma.
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.
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.
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. ....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.....
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?