With murder and other such crimes, however, there is often evidence that is generally damning. (weapon, intent, etc.) With sexual cases (eg. rape) you have two people with no other evidence other than their own say. Just because there was intercourse doesn't mean there was rape. For example, guy A sleeps with girl B. Both consent at the time. The next day, B calls the police and says she was raped. Court believes B, because, as we all know, men are evil, and A is jailed for 20 years by nothing other than her testimony. (There's also the matter of not being able to consent (ie. too young), lying about your age, and getting your partner arrested for absolutely no reason whatsoever, but that's another story.)JamesM wrote:Digressing this conversation slightly (and I apologise for that), that same argument could be applied to cases or murder, child abuse, pimping, etc etc.
Surely the sentence imposed on a person found guilty of $CRIME should be applied on the pure assumption that the person is guilty - how he/she is found guilty is, and should be, an entirely different system.
As soon as you create more lenient sentences for crimes because the perpetrator may not have actually done them, then you undermine the process of finding that person guilty. Instead of reducing sentences for everyone, guilty or not, one should focus on fixing the system that wrongly judged him in the first place, surely?
You're right about the system: it's corrupt. It consists of DA's that just want to get another 'win' on their record, and have no actual concern on whether they're putting an innocent man in jail. It also has the 'public', who want 'justice' for a crime, when, in fact, they just want someone in jail, as if that actually fixes anything at all.
)
Upon reflection i found you somewhat funny, After all he is a small kid and should not be banned .
