Log In Sign Up

Should we get rid of trial by jury?


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #61  
June 16th, 2010, 12:32 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
I thought about recanting and dropping the charges all. the. time. The stress of reliving the rape over and over, being questioned, scrutinized, judged and doubted was emotionally, physically and psychologically draining. It is overwhelming.

Yes. There are women that lie. However, many women that are raped feel responsible for the assault because society has put the burden on women. An allegation of rape puts the burden of proof on the victim of assault. It is she that must prove that she didn't "entice" her attacker, either with her appearance or her behavior. Society largely absolves men because, obviously, they are a slave to their sexual urges and it is the responsibility of women not to incite those urges, or suffer the consequences.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #62  
June 16th, 2010, 04:05 PM
Quantum_Leap's Avatar frequent flier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area, Washington
Posts: 9,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amegra View Post
And seriously, it's okay to attack the victim because the attorney can't figure out another way to make his/her case?
I wouldn't use the word "attack." But yes, one of the jobs of a Defense Attorney is to attempt to undermine the credibility of ALL of the prosecution's witnesses -- especially the key witnesses (where possible).
__________________

Thank you to the SSMC makers for my beautiful siggies!

(x2)(x2)(October 2011)
Reply With Quote
  #63  
June 16th, 2010, 04:14 PM
Quantum_Leap's Avatar frequent flier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area, Washington
Posts: 9,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amegra View Post
Uh, NO. Saying you have to prove the victim is telling the truth, and saying the defendant is innocent until proven guilty is not the same thing AT ALL. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty because mistakes in identification and forensic evidence can be made. That does NOT nullify the fact that the victim was raped!
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove both that a crime actually occurred and that the defendant is the one who did it. The difference between rape and the majority of crimes is that for most crimes, it's extremely easy to prove the former. ("Look, there's a dead body!") But there are still some cases where the defendant is acquitted because there was actually no crime. Witness the debate we had a few days ago regarding children dying after being accidentally left in hot car seats. For the woman profiled in that article who was charged but later acquitted, she wasn't acquitted because she wasn't the one who did it (obviously and admittedly, she was the one who left her son in the car). She was charged because there wasn't actually a crime. It's always POSSIBLE that this is the case for a rape charge as well (though, I'll reiterate once again, extremely rare). Shouldn't a good Defense Attorney at least explore this possibility?
__________________

Thank you to the SSMC makers for my beautiful siggies!

(x2)(x2)(October 2011)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
June 16th, 2010, 04:44 PM
WineKeepsMeSane's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: May 2007
Location: where chili has beans
Posts: 13,348
Sure, but there is a huge difference between proving or disproving a crime took place, and suggesting the woman was asking for it by being in the wrong place wearing the wrong clothes. The focus should be on physical evidence and witness testimony, including psychological evaluation and expert opinion, NOT on "well, she wore a miniskirt to the bar and left with the guy so it MUST have been consentual, and by the way, have you noticed what a sulut she was, dancing with all the guys? No way is she a victim"
__________________
Ashley, mommy to Mackenzie 01/01/08

Reply With Quote
  #65  
June 16th, 2010, 04:44 PM
Cereal Killer's Avatar I'm climbin' in yo window
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: next to Chuck Norris
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by brui77 View Post
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove both that a crime actually occurred and that the defendant is the one who did it. The difference between rape and the majority of crimes is that for most crimes, it's extremely easy to prove the former. ("Look, there's a dead body!") But there are still some cases where the defendant is acquitted because there was actually no crime. Witness the debate we had a few days ago regarding children dying after being accidentally left in hot car seats. For the woman profiled in that article who was charged but later acquitted, she wasn't acquitted because she wasn't the one who did it (obviously and admittedly, she was the one who left her son in the car). She was charged because there wasn't actually a crime. It's always POSSIBLE that this is the case for a rape charge as well (though, I'll reiterate once again, extremely rare). Shouldn't a good Defense Attorney at least explore this possibility?
You are talking about mens rea and mens actus. The case of the woman leaving her child in the car did not meet both of these criteria; the guilty act was not coupled with a guilty mind.
A rape victims sexual history is irrelevant, yet, if she wasn't raped as a virgin, you can bet your can that it will be addressed and she will be crucified. Can you imagine sitting in on a burglary trial and hearing the defense attorney grilling the victim "WHY DID YOU BUY SUCH A NICE HOUSE?", "DIDN'T YOU THINK YOU WERE ASKING FOR IT WHEN YOU BOUGHT THAT HOUSE AND EVERYONE COULD SEE IT?". Seriously.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #66  
June 16th, 2010, 04:47 PM
Quantum_Leap's Avatar frequent flier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area, Washington
Posts: 9,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amegra View Post
Sure, but there is a huge difference between proving or disproving a crime took place, and suggesting the woman was asking for it by being in the wrong place wearing the wrong clothes. The focus should be on physical evidence and witness testimony, including psychological evaluation and expert opinion, NOT on "well, she wore a miniskirt to the bar and left with the guy so it MUST have been consentual, and by the way, have you noticed what a sulut she was, dancing with all the guys? No way is she a victim"
I agree with this. "She was asking for it" is not only insulting and derogatory, it's also not (or at least shouldn't be) a successful defense strategy. It doesn't do anything to prove that there was no crime, it's just ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaceyC View Post
A rape victims sexual history is irrelevant, yet, if she wasn't raped as a virgin, you can bet your can that it will be addressed and she will be crucified. Can you imagine sitting in on a burglary trial and hearing the defense attorney grilling the victim "WHY DID YOU BUY SUCH A NICE HOUSE?", "DIDN'T YOU THINK YOU WERE ASKING FOR IT WHEN YOU BOUGHT THAT HOUSE AND EVERYONE COULD SEE IT?". Seriously.
I agree with this, too. I don't think that those are the kinds of questions Defense Attorneys should be asking. They're inflammatory and they make no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaceyC View Post
A rape victims sexual history is irrelevant, yet, if she wasn't raped as a virgin, you can bet your can that it will be addressed and she will be crucified. Can you imagine sitting in on a burglary trial and hearing the defense attorney grilling the victim "WHY DID YOU BUY SUCH A NICE HOUSE?", "DIDN'T YOU THINK YOU WERE ASKING FOR IT WHEN YOU BOUGHT THAT HOUSE AND EVERYONE COULD SEE IT?". Seriously.
Also wanted to add that if I were the Prosecuting Attorney I would object to that line of questioning on the ground of relevance. (Look at me; I've watched Law and Order!)
__________________

Thank you to the SSMC makers for my beautiful siggies!

(x2)(x2)(October 2011)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:43 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0