Atheism +

[Tiberius]

This reminds me of the ex-cheerleader turned high school teacher that slept with one of her students. As a reward for pleading guilty she had all felony charges dropped against her which meant she would spend no time in prison. All I could think of when I saw this on the news was the outcry there would be if a man who fucked one of his underage students was allowed to go free.

It seems fucking ridiculous to me that anyone can plead guilty to a crime and as a "reward" for admitting to it, have all the charges dropped.

"Guilty rapists" are "set free" Tibs?

Yes, probably. Remember from discussions before on these forums, there are two meanings to the word "guilty". Guilty as in actually committed the crime, and guilty as in "found guilty". A person can be:

1) Guilty of committing the crime and found guilty by a court of law.
2) Guilty of committing the crime but found not guilty by a court of law.
3) Innocent of committing the crime but found guilty by a court of law.
4) Innocent of committing the crime and found not guilty by a court of law.

We are obviously hoping that (1) and (4) happen, but you are kidding yourself if you think that (2) and (3) never happen ever.

"I can't remember" doesn't, to my mind, look to be a very effective defense. I agree that it would be difficult to imagine a way to proceed with such a case as either the prosecution or the defense, if I'd put all of my chips in with a persons personal testimony as to whether or not they remember the night in question.

"I can't remember" isn't a very effective defense, but it can be the only defense if the prosecution are unable to come up with any actual evidence. If the only evidence is one person's accusation, the case should be immediately thrown out of court. It's a tough decision I know, but the only logical position one can take without resorting to personal bias.

Unfortunately, there are probably some judges that would immediately suspect a man of being a rapist, even if there is no physical evidence against him. The point of a court is to determine whether the person did it beyond all reasonable doubt. In the case of one person's word against another's, there is reasonable doubt: the accuser could easily be mistaken or lying.

(I think you'd make a great judge btw Tibs...but probably a shitty lawyer.....glowing praise in some circles..lol)

I'd only make a good lawyer if I demanded that all jurors take a basic course in logic before I started my deposition. Actually, I think that should be a requirement to being a juror or a judge...you must pass some sort of critical thinking exam.