Has Nova Scotia lost it's collective mind?

[rdy2go]

Holy crap! I just got finished telling all of you about the cross burning thing here in Nova Scotia. Now from the same province there is this: A man who raped and impregnated his daughter when she was a minor is getting a "Get of the hook free" card. Seems this guy raped his daughter and as a result she became pregnant. He was arrested and charged with rape, incest, and a few other charges. His legal team delayed the case for so long that the judge has ruled the charges against him be stayed. Essentially he is a free man. The reason the judge gave was that the case has been tied up for so long that the jerks' right to a fair trial has been compromised, so, he walks! He raped his kid for Christ's sake! He should have his nuts cut out, not be getting a free pass on this. He doesn't have to answer for his crime at all, plus it seems this verdict has the potential to make victims like his daughter easy targents. It seems that in NS we really are going backward. Oh yeah, it may actually have been the same judge who made this ruling that granted all the delays in the first place. How messed up is that. As a father who loves and protects his kids I am disgusted by this. Totally disgusted! It may set a very very dangerous precident.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

And what of the poor daughter now, carrying his chicl? Does she now get state benefits for being pregnant with her sister/brother-child? Is that bastard going to provide her with child support for her and that baby? How's this going to work out? And how is she going to cope with the knowlege that her child may be abnormal or retarded becuase of the father being Their father?

I agree with Randy. He Should be punished to the full extent of the the law, or some big ole Bubba's need to come a'visiting him with a big pair of shears and a large rubber band.....Just my:2cents
Cat

[Vikkster230]

Another case for castration with a rusty spoon and MANY dirty needles...

[BLCHGK777]

And what of the poor daughter now, carrying his chicl? Does she now get state benefits for being pregnant with her sister/brother-child? Is that bastard going to provide her with child support for her and that baby? How's this going to work out? And how is she going to cope with the knowlege that her child may be abnormal or retarded becuase of the father being Their father?

I agree with Randy. He Should be punished to the full extent of the the law, or some big ole Bubba's need to come a'visiting him with a big pair of shears and a large rubber band.....Just my:2cents
Cat

This to the second power. Also now where is this little girl going to stay? She should be as far away from her father as possible and I am hoping that's what they did.

[TwylaTwobits]

OMFG, that's insane. Is there a mother involved in all of this? Is there any way for child welfare groups to step in and get that girl out of that home? Though that's a little like closing the barn door after the horse is out since she's pregnant.

Is she going to be forced to carry that child full term? How old is she? Old enough to menstruate does not mean old enough to successfully carry a pregnancy to term.

So to sum up my feelings from both threads....they should take a cross, light it and shove it up this guy's ass.

[FalconAngel]

The crime of rape is bad enough, but one's own daughter......AND a minor at that.

That is 7th level of hell bad.

It takes a special kind of broken human being to do that. Probably part of that "bad blood" thing.

[Donkey_burger]

This is one very, very sick man, and that's the most polite thing I have to say about him. The girl will never be the same person. I hope he doesn't live with her anymore, and that she has a good support system in place and also a psych team, geneticist, and an ob/gyn experienced in this sort of situation, cus she's gonna need it!


[snip]And how is she going to cope with the knowlege that her child may be abnormal or retarded becuase of the father being Their father?

On something else, entirely:

You know, cat, I know you feel really strongly and are really angry about this issue, but as somebody who has disabilities, I wish you had used different terminology to describe the potential child. I know when you were my age (19, almost 20), the words you used were acceptable, but society has changed.

I'm sure the kid having a disability will be the least of her problems, anyways. If the kid does develop a disability because of this sick man, she'll adjust to having a kid with a disability---the kid won't have to adjust to the disability, unless it's late onset enough that s/he will have a self-concept, but will have to adjust to how the disability came to be.

That is probably what @&#!@* me off the most. No child should have to be touched by sexual abuse simply by conception, and then having a disability cus of it will only make society rub it in your face even more. I can't think of this anymore.

DB :bipride:

[Darkside2009]

Just a few small points before you all rush off to get your hacksaws.

Firstly, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, these are offences he is alleged to have committed.

Thirdly, just because a person has been arrested and charged with any offence, doesn't make them guilty of that offence. The prosecution still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fourthly, any person is entitled to a swift and judicious trial.

If there have been any delays in the trial it is more likely to have been the prosecution delaying in order to gather evidence.

Think about it rationally, if a defence lawyer were able to continually delay matters coming before the court to the point were the case was thrown out.

Then every defence lawyer in the Western World would be using that ploy, instead of mounting a proper defence to the charges.

It simply doesn't happen like that. I don't know which source the original poster obtained his information from, but I'd hazard a guess to say it was a tabloid newspaper, that likes to sensationalise stories in order to sell copies of its papers.

Wait until you read the full facts before advocating a lynch mob, and don't believe everything you read in newspapers.

[rdy2go]

An update:
There is a publication ban on the details of this case, to protect the victim, due to her age likely. The problem is the slime balls name is included in the ban, so this winds up protecting him as well. How ever, don't you think that if he were innocent he would at least want the authorities to re-open the case to find the actual rapist, and b) if he were innocent don't ya think he would be running to the press to provide them with the test results (if any) so he could clear his name? If I were falsly accused of something like this, I damn well would want the world to know I didn't do it. Besides even in a publication ban they have family who know who they are, at the very least, you would think he wouold provide them with the proof he didn't do it. Sorry to all you athiests out there but, at times like this I certianly do hope there is a Hell, so this guy and those like him can burn in it:2cents:

[rdy2go]

Darkside, you wrote "It simply doesn't happen like that. I don't know which source the original poster obtained his information from, but I'd hazard a guess to say it was a tabloid newspaper, that likes to sensationalise stories in order to sell copies of its papers."
And it was the defnce that did the delaying of the matter!

Sorry to burst your bubble but I did not get this information from a tabloid news paper. I got it from a radio news cast, (CBC in Canada) who are not tabloid style or gossip style, they have the highest standards of news broadcasting in the country, and they were on air with a reporter who was at the courthouse in Halifax when the charges were stayed. So before ya go making assumptions as to the source here's some advice: The next time you want to know where someones info comes from don't assume and then accuse, ask first! Had I read it in the "Enquirer" I would not have posted it in the first place, because, a) I would not have given it a second thought, and b) I would not have read it in a tabloid, "cause I DON'T READ THE FUCKING TABLOIDS! 'Nuff said.

[darkeyes]

I think its outrageous that justice will not be done or seen to be done in this case! I don't know enough about it but it seems something has gone badly wrong. No one is getting any justice here, victim or elleged perpetrator. Nor are the people of Nova Scotia or Canada.

I understand Rdy2go's irritation at Darkside, yet I agree with him in the main for the reasons he outlined. Maybe its because we live in countries where outlined by rdy2 simply would not happen, and is therefore a puzzle to us. However, I don't believe our justice systems are so different. Defence lawyers delay a case as they have done here? I don't think so. They can delay cases with agreement by the trial judge and sometimes with the prosecution, but so as to have any trial not take place because of the alleged perpetrator not receiving a fair trial? There is more to it than that. If that was the case, no one would ever be tried for anything. Someone has cocked up and for all concerned, alleged victim, perpetrator or the people of Nova Scotia themselves, not to say the good name or otherwise of the justice system in the province, we should know why!

[topheavynurse]

That also happened here. at first the man tried to charge another kid with statutory rape before the girl told that her father was the one that had gotten her pregnant.

[Darkside2009]

Well thankfully we try our cases in a court of law, and not in the media, based on a small thing called evidence. Not supposition, or hearsay.

Broadcast media are just as capable of inaccuracy as any other media, and just as guilty in chasing ratings to the detriment of justice.

For example here in Ireland, Liam Adams, the brother of Sinn Fein President, Gerry Adams, is fighting extradition to Northern Ireland on a European Arrest Warrant. He is alleged, by one of his own daughters, to have repeatedly raped her during her childhood, she further alleges that she informed her Uncle, Gerry Adams, of these facts twenty years ago.

Now the grounds that Liam Adams is contesting extradition to Northern Ireland, is that all the pre-trial publicity has prejudiced his chances of obtaining a fair trial.

Incidentally, one of Liam's other daughters has put up surety for him. Gerry Adams has also admitted that his own Father, who is now deceased, had molested others in his family.

The ability of the defence lawyers to delay a trial is very limited. It is usually on the grounds that they have not received all the evidence from the prosecution in order to prepare their defence.

Applications for delay to a trial are made to the judge, and it is he or she who decides if the rules of discovery have been complied with and the case can or cannot proceed.

A higher court can overturn the judges decision, if he or she, erred in fact or law, so recourse lies that way.

In the meantime you cannot keep a person deprived of their liberty, or with a court case hanging over them indefinitely, they have rights under the law too.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that perhaps the daughter might have mental health problems and has falsely accused her Father of this crime. He might well be innocent of all that he was charged with.

But Hell! Let's not spoil a party, just break out the bed-sheets and let's have a lynching.

Or wait, here is a novel idea, why don't we just wait until all the facts are known and then make a decision.

[FalconAngel]

Just a few small points before you all rush off to get your hacksaws.

Firstly, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, these are offences he is alleged to have committed.

Thirdly, just because a person has been arrested and charged with any offence, doesn't make them guilty of that offence. The prosecution still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fourthly, any person is entitled to a swift and judicious trial.

If there have been any delays in the trial it is more likely to have been the prosecution delaying in order to gather evidence.

Think about it rationally, if a defence lawyer were able to continually delay matters coming before the court to the point were the case was thrown out.

Then every defence lawyer in the Western World would be using that ploy, instead of mounting a proper defence to the charges.

It simply doesn't happen like that. I don't know which source the original poster obtained his information from, but I'd hazard a guess to say it was a tabloid newspaper, that likes to sensationalise stories in order to sell copies of its papers.

Wait until you read the full facts before advocating a lynch mob, and don't believe everything you read in newspapers.

A few points that you are missing here.

1. Since the case has been dismissed by the judge, the Prosecution will never get the chance to even attempt to prove their case.

2. Since the case has been dismissed the accused will have the accusation hanging over his head, like the sword of Damocles, for the rest of his life. That will adversely affect him if he is, in fact innocent.

3. Since he will not be prosecuted, he will also never have the chance to prove his innocence, if he is innocent.

4. Here in the US, if you have the money for it, your defense attorney will often use the prosecution's attempts at gathering as much data and evidence as possible as an excuse for getting a dismissal.

You may want to consider that, too.

[darkeyes]

A few points that you are missing here.

1. Since the case has been dismissed by the judge, the Prosecution will never get the chance to even attempt to prove their case.

2. Since the case has been dismissed the accused will have the accusation hanging over his head, like the sword of Damocles, for the rest of his life. That will adversely affect him if he is, in fact innocent.

3. Since he will not be prosecuted, he will also never have the chance to prove his innocence, if he is innocent.

4. Here in the US, if you have the money for it, your defense attorney will often use the prosecution's attempts at gathering as much data and evidence as possible as an excuse for getting a dismissal.

You may want to consider that, too.

The worst thing Falcie.. is that if he is guilty, that victim will never get any justice and while no rape victim ever gets any complete closure, it will be so much more difficult for her to return to a anything remotely like a normal life..

[FalconAngel]

The worst thing Falcie.. is that if he is guilty, that victim will never get any justice and while no rape victim ever gets any complete closure, it will be so much more difficult for her to return to a anything remotely like a normal life..

Another good point. I knew there was something I missed when I made that post.

[Darkside2009]

Well, I believe I did address the points you raised in my previous post, but here they are again.

Firstly, on the limited facts we are given by the OP the judge has acquitted on the grounds of the unconscionable delay in the prosecution of the defendant. As I said, every defendant is entitled to a swift and fair trial.

The ability of the defence to ask for a delay in proceedings is strictly limited. It usually concerns the fact that they have not received the papers detailing the case against their client from the prosecution and are therefore unable to mount their defence.

It might also be the case that the accused is mentally ill and unable to understand the charges brought against him, let alone enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

If such were the case, and the accused was likely to recover his health, a plea of not guilty would be entered on his behalf. If the accused was mentally ill and unlikely to recover then he could be sectioned under the mental health acts if it was thought he was a danger to himself or others. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Secondly, the media ban is to ensure an innocent man does not have an accusation hanging over him for the rest of his life.

Thirdly, as the Canadian, US and English Law systems are all based on Common Law, a person accused does not have to prove his or her innocence. They are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fourthly, the defence cannot object to the prosecution gathering evidence. They can claim that the evidence is inadmissable if it has been contaminated, or the chain of evidence has been broken.

They can also claim that the Defendants rights to a fair trial have been breached if the Prosecution gives details of evidence in press interviews before the evidence has been heard in court and before that evidence has been ruled as admissable or in-admissable.

The aim is to ensure that the jury decides the case on the basis of the admissable evidence revealed in court and on that alone, to ensure the Defendant has a fair trial. Such a ruling is called sub judice.

I hope this helps, as many of you seem too eager to rush to judgement, before knowing the full facts of the case.

[darkeyes]

I hope this helps, as many of you seem too eager to rush to judgement, before knowing the full facts of the case.

..is often the way Darkside hun.. the law says that.. but is jus a pity that no 1 reelly believes it.. an wen folk r found not guilty based on the evidence afta a nice public vilification.. lotsa peeps still don believe it..

..Scots law isn based on common law but roman law.. the not proven verdict notwithstandin, its zactly the same wiv that...

.. legal form is 1 thing..the form a public opinion quite anotha.. did 'e do it? We will nev kno for sure now will we? :(

[Darkside2009]

You ask who believes in the law, I do, passionately. It may not be perfect but it is certainly better than the lynch mob.

I can't recall how many times on this service I have heard people ask for tolerance and forbearance for themselves and their beliefs, yet are willing to countenance violence against a person without hearing one shred of evidence.

How many people might have been saved from lynch mobs if people only used their brains to think rationally instead of all the hatred and bigotry.

As long as I retain a brain in my head I'll continue to use it for something other than just keeping my feet warm.

I know Scottish Law is based on Roman Law, we have had a discussion on the Not Proven verdict available to Scottish courts before in a previous thread. However as Canada has a Common Law system I referred to English Common Law.

On a different note entirely, I see your team got beaten yet again. They might as well have you playing for them.lol

Sorry! That was off topic but I couldn't resist the cheap laugh.

[Hephaestion]

The UK has a high profile case being scrutinised at present. It is that of Jon Venables who is one of the convicted killers (then 11yrs old) of the 2yr old James Bulger. Our justice system is going out of its way to be as fair as possible following the allegation that Jon Venables has violated his terms of parole.

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

Allbeit that some judges bray and eat hay, I am with Darkside2009 here:
"....You ask who believes in the law, I do, passionately. It may not be perfect but it is certainly better than the lynch mob.....".

Borrowed from who? "the veneer of civilisation is remarkably thin"

Here's hoping that true wisdom prevails in Nova Scotia.

[Darkside2009]

I believe it's a quote from Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes.

[darkeyes]

You ask who believes in the law, I do, passionately. It may not be perfect but it is certainly better than the lynch mob.

I can't recall how many times on this service I have heard people ask for tolerance and forbearance for themselves and their beliefs, yet are willing to countenance violence against a person without hearing one shred of evidence.

How many people might have been saved from lynch mobs if people only used their brains to think rationally instead of all the hatred and bigotry.

As long as I retain a brain in my head I'll continue to use it for something other than just keeping my feet warm.

I know Scottish Law is based on Roman Law, we have had a discussion on the Not Proven verdict available to Scottish courts before in a previous thread. However as Canada has a Common Law system I referred to English Common Law.

On a different note entirely, I see your team got beaten yet again. They might as well have you playing for them.lol

Sorry! That was off topic but I couldn't resist the cheap laugh.

I believe in law also Darkside me luff.. am healthily sceptical of so much of it but we need it 2 prevent chaos.. it can an will in time improve.. an has in many ways even in my lifetime..

..I try never to prejudge a case no matter its severity. I too believe in innocence until proven otherwise. Unfortunately not everyone does and often it is a false presumption in the minds of many of the general public.. it is also the case in many quarters of the justice system..

.. I do make an exception however... a man called Romanov is guilty.. the nice lithuanian gentleman who owns Hreat of Midlothian Football Club.. an its bout time he sold out 2 sum 1 who can run the club decently an let the manager do 'is job.. me can liv wiv it an we wer 'way from 'ome an 1 nowt aint so bad.... Dundee Utd r betta than us.. don like it.. but nowt else me can do.. :( *Sniff*

..anyas rite..the laff is cheap...:tong: :bigrin:

[tenni]

I don't think that it impacts this case, but just to add a bit more to the mix regarding English versus Roman common law, part of Canada uses the Napoleonic Code as a base for its judicial system. Quebec uses the Napoleonic Code. Apparently, the Napoleonic Code is a revised version of Roman Law. It is used for CRIMINAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, and COMMERCIAL LAW. However I suspect that murder is a federal offence and this case did not happen in Quebec. English common law would have been used. I don't know if it really matters unless the aspect of a case taking too long before coming to trial is part of common law?

[darkeyes]

..meant 2 say in me las post but didn.. the law has also went inta reverse in many ways an all an becum less fair an less just.. jus a happenstance a life am afraid.. nowt gets betta evenly..sumtimes it goes backward..

[Doggie_Wood]

. . . . . . . . His legal team delayed the case for so long that the judge has ruled the charges against him be stayed. Essentially he is a free man. The reason the judge gave was that the case has been tied up for so long that the jerks' right to a fair trial has been compromised, . . . . .

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on which side of the fence one sits) this is a common tactic used by attorneys to lessen the the outcome of a sentence.
The reason I say "fortunately" is that many years ago, I was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance (420) :eek: with the intent to distribute (multiple baggies) :eek:. Although I was out on bond for almost 2 years, when I finally went before the judge, my attorney argued the "Right to a speedy trial - 120 days". So I got off with a 1 year probation, served three and a half months and had the probation dismissed.
However, for such crimes such as rape, incest, child molestation - these tactics should not be allowed or taken into consideration when it comes time to be tried and, if convicted, punished.

just my :2cents:

Doggie :doggie:

[rdy2go]

Well, this caused a little stir didn't it! First let me state my position on this, cause really all I did was relay the story as I heard it on the news, then got accused of reading it in a tabloid, not asked if I did get it in a tabloid just accused of it, hope I cleared that up for ya darkside. Second you still didn't accept the fact that it was a reputable broad caster that I heard it from originally, reporting from right outside the courthouse minutes after the ruling came down, Geez! I know broadcasters get it wrong once in a while, but they get it right way more than not, this was not an editorial spot, not a public opinion spot, the reporter was inside, the ruling came down, he could not report on what was said only what the charges were, and what the ruling was, 2 Tv stations and the daily traditional news paper ran the story that day, all reports were the same, they got it right this time! So now my opinion. The Bastard is guilty! Yes I am allowed to beleive it! The problem is that there are to many loop holes and delay tactics, and other stupid tweaks in the system that are avaliable to the defence that the Crown, or D.A. or what ever they are called around the world cannot use, so fuckholes like this guy walk, but he still isn't declared innocent, the charges were stayed or dropped, you can be guilty and still get off without doing time, if ya don't believe me ask OJ Simpson, remember him? He was found not guilty, or the murder of 2 people, remember? That doesn't mean he didn't do it, it just means the glove didn't seem to fit right! <<geddit? But seriously, the fundamental mistake that was made here, was the same judge who stayed the charges was the same one who granted the defence the countless delays, at the very least a fresh set of ears should have been brought in to hear that part of the case. Now can we lynch the bastard?:2cents::2cents:

[mariersa]

Well, I've tried to avoid it, this instance(as well as others) is absolutely appalling! The arguement of medically induced miscarriage(if detected early enough) or surgical abortion is re-inforced, the points expressed above regarding potential deformities, physical or mental, potential hardship for the mother and child as well as requiring (potentially) public socio-economic demands on the public for care that should not have been allowed. In cases such as these, the evidence is obtained quickly and accurate, why go through years of trials, appeals, re-trials, re-appeals, the evidence is there, this is incest, period! a term nobody wants to admit exists. Regardless, whatever Law Standard you may elect to apply, fundamentaley this is a savage act.
I personally abhore the taking of human life however, in cases such as these, I have to absolutely agree with just,quick and final judgement. (but that's probably another thread)

[Hephaestion]

rdy2go "...Now can we lynch the bastard?..."

That's not the way it's supposed to go. But on a point of clarification please, which one do you propose goes first - the judge or the suspect?

Yours in despair

H.

[darkeyes]

rdy2go "...Now can we lynch the bastard?..."

That's not the way it's supposed to go. But on a point of clarification please, which one do you propose goes first - the judge or the suspect?

Yours in despair

H.

..not the defence lawyers? Or prosecution team, Heph? Wot 'bout the legislators who rite such inept law? O yea.. lets nev forget the electors who elected the legislators who rote such shitty law ..we c ud go on an on.. by time we finished ther will only b kids left:eek:..mayb not such a bad thing at that.. ;)

[Hephaestion]

It must be in the air, even in England

10 Mar 2010 - The 56-year-old father is serving a life sentence for repeatedly raping his daughters, who went through 16 pregnancies between them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7414700/British-Fritzl-apology-to-daughters-raped-over-25-years.html

[FalconAngel]

Well, I believe I did address the points you raised in my previous post, but here they are again.

Firstly, on the limited facts we are given by the OP the judge has acquitted on the grounds of the unconscionable delay in the prosecution of the defendant. As I said, every defendant is entitled to a swift and fair trial.

The ability of the defence to ask for a delay in proceedings is strictly limited. It usually concerns the fact that they have not received the papers detailing the case against their client from the prosecution and are therefore unable to mount their defence.

It might also be the case that the accused is mentally ill and unable to understand the charges brought against him, let alone enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

If such were the case, and the accused was likely to recover his health, a plea of not guilty would be entered on his behalf. If the accused was mentally ill and unlikely to recover then he could be sectioned under the mental health acts if it was thought he was a danger to himself or others. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Secondly, the media ban is to ensure an innocent man does not have an accusation hanging over him for the rest of his life.

Thirdly, as the Canadian, US and English Law systems are all based on Common Law, a person accused does not have to prove his or her innocence. They are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fourthly, the defence cannot object to the prosecution gathering evidence. They can claim that the evidence is inadmissable if it has been contaminated, or the chain of evidence has been broken.

They can also claim that the Defendants rights to a fair trial have been breached if the Prosecution gives details of evidence in press interviews before the evidence has been heard in court and before that evidence has been ruled as admissable or in-admissable.

The aim is to ensure that the jury decides the case on the basis of the admissable evidence revealed in court and on that alone, to ensure the Defendant has a fair trial. Such a ruling is called sub judice.

I hope this helps, as many of you seem too eager to rush to judgement, before knowing the full facts of the case.

Actually, if you look at the points that you raised, none of them addressed the points that I brought up. All of your points were about the speedy trial and legal process, not the repercussions of dropping this case without going to trial.

But since you didn't read beyond my saying that you missed some points, you wouldn't notice my points at all.

Do a read-over of my prior post on the points that you missed. Those things that I pointed out will affect the victim and the accused for the rest of their lives.

Of course, when you quote someone, it makes it easier to tell who you are responding to.

[rdy2go]

rdy2go "...Now can we lynch the bastard?..."

That's not the way it's supposed to go. But on a point of clarification please, which one do you propose goes first - the judge or the suspect?

Yours in despair

H.

I propose lynching the judge first, the defence team next. Then just to be sure justice is served how about we cut the rapists nuts off feed them to him, then lynch him as well. ... Evil lil shit, ain't I?

[darkeyes]

I propose lynching the judge first, the defence team next. Then just to be sure justice is served how about we cut the rapists nuts off feed them to him, then lynch him as well. ... Evil lil shit, ain't I?

No... I doubt you can claim justice would be served. We live in countries where we have what is loosely termed, rule of law. Pray tell me which law is served by acting as you propose? Is a human being, man or woman not entitled to be tried by his peers for his or her alleged crimes?

I hope the day never comes when you are accused of a viscious rape against a child, whether or not that child is your progeny is immaterial, or even against an adult woman, with only one person knowing and able to say for certain that you did not do the crime, other than of course the alleged victim(s), that person being yourself. I sincerely hope that if such a scenario ever comes to pass, that you are not deprived your rights as a human being, trussed and hauled from your gaol cell, dragged accross the street by a wailing vengeful lynch mob, have your balls surgically removed and stuffed in your mouth, and your cock burned before your eyes prior to being strung up for a long unpleasant and lingering death.

I do not claim that the man in question is innocent of the crimes for which he was accused. But he may be innocent of some, or even all, for without the facts being made public, no one, other than the child in question and the accused can possibly know. That is why we have a criminal justice system. To provide justice. Yes it has failed irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case. Sometimes it does so and always has and as justice is provided for and by human beings with human failings it shall always be so.

One of the reasons why we have a criminal justice system is to protect the innocent. It exists to protect the innocent from you and people like you who pre-judge without full knowledge of the evidence.

Evil? No sweetheart I don't believe you to be evil. A trifle unpleasant possibly, but you are not alone in that, but worse, you have absolutely no understanding of why we have the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and why we have criminal justice systems in the first place.

[Hephaestion]

It must be in the air, even in England

10 Mar 2010 - The 56-year-old father is serving a life sentence for repeatedly raping his daughters, who went through 16 pregnancies between them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7414700/British-Fritzl-apology-to-daughters-raped-over-25-years.html


Now that the Law has run its course, can we exclude the judge who seems to have done adequately in this case and substitute the managerial members of Social Services and Police who seemed deaf (claimed powerless to the sound of shuffling as they close ranks) to reports of their juniors following observations of the medics.

[rdy2go]

Now that the people have spoken on the rights of the accused, fair trial and all that, let's take it one further. This case is now officially closed. There will be no further investigation. Justice will not be served, the rapist will be free, so what happens when the rapist decides that he should target another innocent young woman. Does he have another daughter? Will he seek revenge on the daughter he already violated? Or will he just pick a random young woman from some highschool or college and let 'er rip again? Maybe if he does this again he will get convicted. It seems to me that it is possible he could. Yeah I know there are restraining orders and all that, but so what? There have been many funerals that have resulted from some maniac ignoring a restraining order. If we can't protect our youth from people like this then why bother? If people that commit crimes against young folks or anyone for that matter are allowed to manipulate the law so that they don't have to answer to the charges, then why bother with a justice system in the first place. I know that it is important to have a system in place that protects the rights of the accused. But why pay police and investigators to gather evidence and do the work they do, if a judge can in one sentence and for the wrong reasons let the guy walk? I would probably have a different opinion on this had the guy gone to trial, but it never got there. The judge could have made it so, but he decided to play the defence game and let it go on to long. Now, there will be no justice for the victim, she now gets to live like a prisoner herself, wondering if and/or when daddy will come to "visit" her. No young person should have to live like that. The rights of accused people to a fair and speedy trial are all well and good, but the rights of the innocent general public are no less important, let's not forget that. What would you do if some night the police came to your door saying a family member had been murdered or raped etc. and you find out that the suspect had been arrested several times for similar crimes but the judge let him walk, on technicalities?

[darkeyes]

Now that the people have spoken on the rights of the accused, fair trial and all that, let's take it one further. This case is now officially closed. There will be no further investigation. Justice will not be served, the rapist will be free, so what happens when the rapist decides that he should target another innocent young woman. Does he have another daughter? Will he seek revenge on the daughter he already violated? Or will he just pick a random young woman from some highschool or college and let 'er rip again? Maybe if he does this again he will get convicted. It seems to me that it is possible he could. Yeah I know there are restraining orders and all that, but so what? There have been many funerals that have resulted from some maniac ignoring a restraining order. If we can't protect our youth from people like this then why bother? If people that commit crimes against young folks or anyone for that matter are allowed to manipulate the law so that they don't have to answer to the charges, then why bother with a justice system in the first place. I know that it is important to have a system in place that protects the rights of the accused. But why pay police and investigators to gather evidence and do the work they do, if a judge can in one sentence and for the wrong reasons let the guy walk? I would probably have a different opinion on this had the guy gone to trial, but it never got there. The judge could have made it so, but he decided to play the defence game and let it go on to long. Now, there will be no justice for the victim, she now gets to live like a prisoner herself, wondering if and/or when daddy will come to "visit" her. No young person should have to live like that. The rights of accused people to a fair and speedy trial are all well and good, but the rights of the innocent general public are no less important, let's not forget that. What would you do if some night the police came to your door saying a family member had been murdered or raped etc. and you find out that the suspect had been arrested several times for similar crimes but the judge let him walk, on technicalities?

By your law hun, the rights of far more people will be trampled on than would ever be served by justice. U want the law of the mob..fine.. go somewhere it exists.. I dont fancy your chances of survival... an if u did u wud not like it 1 little bit..

[Donkey_burger]

Now that the people have spoken on the rights of the accused, fair trial and all that, let's take it one further. This case is now officially closed. There will be no further investigation. Justice will not be served, the rapist will be free, so what happens when the rapist decides that he should target another innocent young woman. Does he have another daughter? Will he seek revenge on the daughter he already violated? Or will he just pick a random young woman from some highschool or college and let 'er rip again? Maybe if he does this again he will get convicted. It seems to me that it is possible he could. Yeah I know there are restraining orders and all that, but so what? There have been many funerals that have resulted from some maniac ignoring a restraining order. If we can't protect our youth from people like this then why bother? If people that commit crimes against young folks or anyone for that matter are allowed to manipulate the law so that they don't have to answer to the charges, then why bother with a justice system in the first place. I know that it is important to have a system in place that protects the rights of the accused. But why pay police and investigators to gather evidence and do the work they do, if a judge can in one sentence and for the wrong reasons let the guy walk? I would probably have a different opinion on this had the guy gone to trial, but it never got there. The judge could have made it so, but he decided to play the defence game and let it go on to long. Now, there will be no justice for the victim, she now gets to live like a prisoner herself, wondering if and/or when daddy will come to "visit" her. No young person should have to live like that. The rights of accused people to a fair and speedy trial are all well and good, but the rights of the innocent general public are no less important, let's not forget that. What would you do if some night the police came to your door saying a family member had been murdered or raped etc. and you find out that the suspect had been arrested several times for similar crimes but the judge let him walk, on technicalities?

The system is fundamentally broken. The best we can do is to replace it with another, less fundamentally broken system.

DB :bipride:

[rdy2go]

By your law hun, the rights of far more people will be trampled on than would ever be served by justice. U want the law of the mob..fine.. go somewhere it exists.. I dont fancy your chances of survival... an if u did u wud not like it 1 little bit..

The point I'm trying to make here is not the one that you seem to have translated from my rants. The point is that why should innocent people, and victims have to live life in fear of the bad ones getting off (no! not that kind of getting off, lol) because loop holes exist in the systems around the world? The general population is basically decent people, so when one gets through the system who shouldn't, all of a sudden life for the innocent changes. We are allowed to be able to feel safe ya know. However the young victim in this case may have a hard time believing it. Law enforcement personell are sadly way to busy to offer the kind of individual protection some of these folks need to have. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about. In Canada, when sex offenders have served their time they are released. The debt to society is paid and they are free to get on with life on the outside. That is all well and good, you pay your debt, you go free. I have no problem with that at all. One stipulation of such an offender getting out is that where they will live and the likelyhood of them re-offending is made public knowledge. All of a sudden, if the person is at risk to reoffend, life in the community goes straight to Hell. Women and men are afraid to go out, kids are told to sit in front of the TV and not get outside and get some fresh air and exersize. The rights and freedoms of the citizens who are 100% innocent go away, we live in the fear that at anytime this person who we know can re-offend will, and often does. All I'm saying is that an innocent person has just as much right to live safely and without fear as the person who does the crime in the first place. Sure his debt to society is paid and he has the right to resume his life, that is not in question by me or anyone else. But why should families have to live as prisoners in their own homes because of it. The innocent should have just as much right to freedom as the person getting out of prison. If not then what is the point of being a law abiding citizen in the first place? Picture this, a defender of the rights of the accused marches in rallies, signs petitions and makes speeches. Suddenly a convicted murderer out on parole lands in your community. People go nuts, you stand by your morals and belifs and say, "This person has as much right to resume his or her life as any of us." You become the town crier for the rights of the ex con. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, supporting someones rights is awesome, think of the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's and the gains that were made. One rainy night a cop comes to your door, to tell you a loved one has been butally murdered, and theperson in custody for it is the same person you went to bat for. Some how I don't think your gonna say, "Well golly gee, isn't that to bad, I sure hope that when he goes to trial that he will be afforded every right that's avaliable to him. It's to bad that (insert name of victim) had to die, but .... I just don't think it would happen like that.

[Hephaestion]

The problem as always is one of the extreme case causing problems. What we all have to be careful of is using the extreme cases to undermine the sensible moderated approaches that have evolved through trial and error over the years. Revolution rarely provides an infallible solution.

[darkeyes]

The point I'm trying to make here is not the one that you seem to have translated from my rants. The point is that why should innocent people, and victims have to live life in fear of the bad ones getting off (no! not that kind of getting off, lol) because loop holes exist in the systems around the world? The general population is basically decent people, so when one gets through the system who shouldn't, all of a sudden life for the innocent changes. We are allowed to be able to feel safe ya know. However the young victim in this case may have a hard time believing it. Law enforcement personell are sadly way to busy to offer the kind of individual protection some of these folks need to have. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about. In Canada, when sex offenders have served their time they are released. The debt to society is paid and they are free to get on with life on the outside. That is all well and good, you pay your debt, you go free. I have no problem with that at all. One stipulation of such an offender getting out is that where they will live and the likelyhood of them re-offending is made public knowledge. All of a sudden, if the person is at risk to reoffend, life in the community goes straight to Hell. Women and men are afraid to go out, kids are told to sit in front of the TV and not get outside and get some fresh air and exersize. The rights and freedoms of the citizens who are 100% innocent go away, we live in the fear that at anytime this person who we know can re-offend will, and often does. All I'm saying is that an innocent person has just as much right to live safely and without fear as the person who does the crime in the first place. Sure his debt to society is paid and he has the right to resume his life, that is not in question by me or anyone else. But why should families have to live as prisoners in their own homes because of it. The innocent should have just as much right to freedom as the person getting out of prison. If not then what is the point of being a law abiding citizen in the first place? Picture this, a defender of the rights of the accused marches in rallies, signs petitions and makes speeches. Suddenly a convicted murderer out on parole lands in your community. People go nuts, you stand by your morals and belifs and say, "This person has as much right to resume his or her life as any of us." You become the town crier for the rights of the ex con. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, supporting someones rights is awesome, think of the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's and the gains that were made. One rainy night a cop comes to your door, to tell you a loved one has been butally murdered, and theperson in custody for it is the same person you went to bat for. Some how I don't think your gonna say, "Well golly gee, isn't that to bad, I sure hope that when he goes to trial that he will be afforded every right that's avaliable to him. It's to bad that (insert name of victim) had to die, but .... I just don't think it would happen like that.

I understand your outrage at this apparent injustice hun.. but what I am trying to get htrough your noggin is that if people went around acting and imposing the kind of justice you keep suggesting, the people you so rightly care about living free from fear will in fact have to live with a great deal more of it... the law of the mob creates much more fear among the community than does the any failure of the established justice system perceived or otherwise.. what is important is that legislators and justices learn from the cock ups which seem to have permeated this case from start to finish and do something to make it better than it is and more reliable in achieving its purpose...

[darkeyes]

..and now I have more time..on the gist of your main argument of your last post.. it begs the question..is one who has completed his or her sentence never to be entirely forgiven their sins? For what you suggest is that those who have been convicted of committing serious offences for the rest of their lives will never be allowed to live anything remotely like a normal life.. what you are saying is that they have a de facto life sentence.. fine if that is what u are saying.. then change the law to make that explicitly clear.. as it happens I have some sympathy with the argument but have not yet reached a conclusion as to whether or not it will be of benefit to the wider community.. I see drawbacks.. I see lynch mobs.. I see rehabilitated people hunted and never allowed to rest.. the hoo hah over Jamie Bulger in the UK at present shows that a very likely possibility..

I do not want the guilty to escape unpunished.. but I do want a society which can work to rehabilitate even the most heinous offender, for many can be and are rehabilitated... and contribute to society in a constructive and decent manner.. of course some, indeed many re-offend, but many do not..and they should be allowed to live their lives without living under the cloud of perpetual purgatory from society.. they already live it in their own minds...

[rdy2go]

..and now I have more time..on the gist of your main argument of your last post.. it begs the question..is one who has completed his or her sentence never to be entirely forgiven their sins? For what you suggest is that those who have been convicted of committing serious offences for the rest of their lives will never be allowed to live anything remotely like a normal life.. what you are saying is that they have a de facto life sentence.. fine if that is what u are saying.. then change the law to make that explicitly clear.. as it happens I have some sympathy with the argument but have not yet reached a conclusion as to whether or not it will be of benefit to the wider community.. I see drawbacks.. I see lynch mobs.. I see rehabilitated people hunted and never allowed to rest.. the hoo hah over Jamie Bulger in the UK at present shows that a very likely possibility..

I do not want the guilty to escape unpunished.. but I do want a society which can work to rehabilitate even the most heinous offender, for many can be and are rehabilitated... and contribute to society in a constructive and decent manner.. of course some, indeed many re-offend, but many do not..and they should be allowed to live their lives without living under the cloud of perpetual purgatory from society.. they already live it in their own minds...
'Fer Chrissake! Why is it that all of a sudden a man who wants to keep his family and those close to him safe is the bad guy! Geezus, from reading some of the replies there are alot of folks who would forsake the rights of the innocent and children so that we can have legal systems that allow the guilty to go free. Why the hell do you think these slimebag lawyers look for the loop holes in the first place, so they can get the client set free. These guys know some of theses suspects are guilty, but if they go to the "big house" for life they (the lawyer) may not get paid. I never once said I was against fair trial and all that, let's just ensure that fair is fair, for ALL involved, that includes victims. There is absoulutely nothing wrong with wanting people to be safe, and wanting the guilty to serve the right amount of time for his/her crime. That's all I'm saying, innocent people have rights to!

[darkeyes]

I never once said I was against fair trial and all that, let's just ensure that fair is fair, for ALL involved, that includes victims. There is absoulutely nothing wrong with wanting people to be safe, and wanting the guilty to serve the right amount of time for his/her crime. That's all I'm saying, innocent people have rights to!

Then we agree...:)

[rdy2go]

Then we agree...:)

Not totally, there's still the matter of feeding the rapists nuts to him! lol:bigrin:

[darkeyes]

Not totally, there's still the matter of feeding the rapists nuts to him! lol:bigrin:

*laffs and shakes head despondently givin rdy up as lost cause*:tong: