Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

  
Home | Sex Offender Registry | Megan's Law | Forums (Message Boards) | News Archive
AMBER Alert | Law Enforcement Agencies | Directory of Sites | Polls | Library | Glossary | More Resources                             Login | About Us

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp14000+
orolan4000+
Navigatr12500+
Silvert...2500+
1dadof52500+
Valerie2000+
steve1500+
victori...1000+
myoung1000+
rabbitr...750+
HPierce750+
poetsdr...750+
Renunci...750+
lj750+
fallenone500+
DoTheCr...500+
marta500+
momhelp...500+
prozac500+
rebel51500+
PVulcan250+
anti250+
rodsmith250+
LockEmUp250+
Quest250+
artie250+
KK250+
LostTime250+
TGoodman250+
amberleaf250+
deadmom...250+
brennus100+
scarlett100+
mousein...100+
thepar100+
assumpt...100+
lildrafire100+
JakeLF100+
MrTruth100+
june5100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
buttwaxer
chooch
genospice
hud123
kawaski
kelstress
unknowable

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 118347 (In Reply to Message 118339)
Re:


Posted by x_marta on Oct 19, 2003 04:57 AM | Also by x_marta
Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:
orolan wrote:

> Makes no difference. Do you feel that 5% of the people on
> death row actually being innocent is an acceptable number?
> How about 10%? 20%? Where does it stop being "insignificant"?


Once you offer a workable alternative that gives a 4% incidence of wrongful conviction, I would willingly switch to such a system. It is my opinion that 5% is pretty damn good, given the alternatives practiced by the rest of the world. I think that you can change all the laws that you want and you will still end up with a certain percentage of innocent people going to jail . . . and that's about it. And I never said anything about insignificance.



> ONE person in prison unjustly is a problem. You can't see it,
> because you aren't that person. But if you were, would your
> opinion still be the same?

You don't understand my opinion. Even if I were wrongfully convicted, I wouldn't rail against the system as a whole, I would simply assert that, in my case, it failed. I understand that NO system works perfectly ALL OF THE TIME.



> True. The evidence may be compelling. And it also may be
> tainted, twisted, or downright false. But since the
> prosecution brought the evidence, it has instant credibility
> in the eyes of the jury.

I simply do not believe that the prosecution is that evil or the jury, that indiscriminate.



> Perhaps this is why of the first 70
> cases(now up to 138) in which the Innocence Project has
> exonerated people, 61 of those cases involved mistaken
> ID(somebody said "It was him" and the jury believed the
> witness),

Without any other evidence?


> God forbid that a person should be at home alone watching TV.
> They could find themselves doing life next month. And people
> like you wouldn't care, because you're safe in your bed,
> knowing that "justice was served, and the jury has spoken".

Except by your logic, if I'm home alone watching TV, I too can easily be accused and wrongfully convicted of murder. You are oversimplifying because you are passionate about this issue - which is fine, except ordinary people stop listening when people get hyper-emotional about an issue. If you want to be convincing, you've got to drop the bad-prosecutor-boogey-man puts-hordes-of-innocents-in-jail line and dig up a TON more data. Talk data to yourself until you're fluent in it, until you can use it calmly and effectively. Emotions won't get you very far by themselves.



> Since I'm already using his data, Barry Scheck and his 138
> freed people is all the statistic I need to know there is a
> problem.

Except that your average person is going to look at this number and think, "Man, 138? That's nothing. More people than that were killed by Texas alone in the past 6 months. Such a small fraction of the total . . . nothing to worry about." Whether it's an accurate perception or not, that's the impression you give with these numbers.


> If juries will make mistakes like this when a person's LIFE
> hangs in the balance, what makes you think they
> would be any more diligent when the crime is something like
> burglary?

You define it as a "mistake," but I still think that the evidence at the time of trial was sufficiently compelling to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no mistake. There is a tragedy . . . and there are appeals, but nonetheless tragedies may still occur, no matter what one does to try to avert them.


> "Where is your sense of responsibility?"
>
> The state took it away when I became a "convicted felon". I
> am considered "undesirable" because I've been convicted of a
> crime myself. So I would naturally vote for acquittal every
> time. Hogwash. That logic dictates that a jury of "honest"
> people would always vote for conviction, which we know isn't
> true.

The state wasn't assuming that YOU, orolan, would vote for acquittal everytime, they simply don't want convicted criminals on juries because SOME of them might vote for acquittals more often than warranted by the evidence. What? Do you want the judgement of each convicted felon to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis? You shouldn't take it personally - it's simply a practical decision that, in reality, may have absolutely nothing to do with you.


> "My question is: how would you change the justice system to
> fix the problem with he said/she said rape cases?"
> "And let's get the definition of "he said/she said" out of
> the way first so that we're both talking about the same thing"
>
> Saved these for last. Were you going to define "he said/she
> said", or did you want me to? And perhaps we should move
> these last two questions to the new board, as this one will
> go down soon.

I haven't decided if I'm moving to the new board.

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.
Switch to Flat View

Message 118339
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"


Posted by x_orolan on Oct 17, 2003 09:45 PM | Also by x_orolan
Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:

Thread


118093, x_simon, Oct 12, 2003 03:58 PM ["no" means "no"...or maybe &qu...]
      118098, x_SurvivorForeve, Oct 13, 2003 02:19 AM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
      118125, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 08:25 AM [well considering.]
            118150, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 11:08 AM [Re: well considering.]
      118138, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 10:14 AM [Re: "no" means "no"...or ...]
            118164, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:36 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...o...]
                  118173, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 07:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...]
                        118192, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 10:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
                              118216, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 12:12 PM [Re: "no" means "no...]
                                    118236, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 04:00 PM [Re: "no" means "...]
                                          118247, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:31 PM [Re: "no" means &...]
                                                118252, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:41 PM [Re: "no" means...]
                                                      118265, x_losttime, Oct 15, 2003 05:11 AM [Re: "no"...]
                                                            118267, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 09:36 AM [Re: "no"...]
                                                                  118303, x_losttime, Oct 16, 2003 01:53 AM [Re: "no...]
                                                                        118316, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:45 PM [Re: "n...]
                                                                              118320, x_losttime, Oct 17, 2003 01:09 AM [Re: &...]
                                                                                    118334, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:06 PM [Re: &...]
                                                      118312, x_orolan, Oct 16, 2003 12:33 PM [Re: "no" m...]
                                                            118317, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:48 PM [Re: "no"...]
                                                                  118325, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 11:35 AM [Re: "no&q...]
                                                                        118335, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:19 PM [Re: "n...]
                                                                              118339, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 09:45 PM [Re: &qu...]
                                                                                    118347, x_marta, Oct 19, 2003 04:57 AM [Re:]
                                                                                          118351, x_orolan, Oct 19, 2003 06:56 PM [Re:]
                                                                                                118358, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 01:01 PM [Re...]
                                                                                                      118361, x_orolan, Oct 20, 2003 02:31 PM [...]
                                                                                                            118365, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 06:13 PM [...]
                        146015, Rejected
                  118188, x_losttime, Oct 13, 2003 08:29 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
Forum Home | Top of Thread
Tell a Friend about this page.
Copyright 1998-2007 SexCriminals.com and Befriend | About Site | Credits | Contact Us