|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a "she said he did" basis is used for convictions, one has to seriously question the direction that democracy has taken.
When "he" is not allowed to cross-examine "her", denying the fundamental right of the accused to confront his accuser, we no longer have a constitutional democracy, but a judicial tyranny. Especially when the whole case hangs on the credibility of the accuser.
The only way out is for juries to simply refuse to convict without physical, DNA evidence. Some may call this jury nullification. I call it a correct application of reasonable doubt; if forbidden to hear evidence which would be favorable to the defendant, reasonable doubt means I assume in his favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:04 PM March 11th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Even DNA evidence isn't absolute. Often the point in dispute is that of consent. In these cases, the credibility of the accused and the accuser become very important. Without the ability to show evidence against the credibility of the accuser in such cases, the defendant is not able to properly defend themself. Until such a time as they are, I recommend jury nullification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:00 PM March 11th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The working group, led by First Assistant District Attorney Josh Wall and Boston Police Superintendent John Gallagher, will start work immediately. It will make recommendations within a month, Conley said.
Sounds innocent enough...until you have served on a workgroup. What will happen here is that unless the public makes a massive showing it will be stacked with anti-male bigots.
Worse, those that are formally invited will be paid bureaucrats that attend with an agenda of getting the maximum male conviction rates. You can bet that NOW, the judiciary, the biased police, and more will be there with their hate-based agenda. They will be crying fowl and claiming it is the man’s fault.
The only way to make this group work is to stack it with men's issues groups who are well organized and have a spokesperson to present an agenda. It will take about 20-30 of them. More if they do not get the majority vote.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To follow up on what has been posted about jury nullification:
The problem is twofold as I see it.
1) Most people outside the MRAs and those who are friends and family memebers of men who have been screwed by the system don't know how the law is so stacked agsinst men.
2) The jury doesn't KNOW that the defense attorney has been gagged on certain questions. The jury may say to themselves: "gee, he didn't ask her any questions in [this area] so, there must have been nothing to report." The defense attorney can be hamstrung by the "rape shield" laws that allow a woman to have a past of false allegations, mental instability, or making drama where none exists. This is deemed "non-relevant" under "rape shiled" and is, for the most part, excluded.
I would eagerly convict a man who raped a woman. I would make sure the evidence supported it and was clear, and put him away. But I would also be just as happy to free a man falsely accused. What ticks me off is the RARELY used laws that are in place to punish the false accuser.
There's no deterrent to false allegations. Even when a man is freed some feminist organization is saying: "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" .... to which I reply: "so what the fuck does GUILTY mean then?"
There are few checks and balances in the current system.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is twofold as I see it.
1) Most people outside the MRAs and those who are friends and family memebers of men who have been screwed by the system don't know how the law is so stacked agsinst men.
2) The jury doesn't KNOW that the defense attorney has been gagged on certain questions.
This may be changing. For instance, the Kobe Bryant case is bringing rape shield laws to public attention. The public now knows the prosecution wants to bar the defense from cross-examining the accuser on her sexual history, even though it is obviously relevant.
The real problem, as I see it, is the brainwashing the public receives, "gotta follow the law..., gotta follow the law.., gotta follow the law". How to convince people that when the law is unjust it must not be followed?
I would eagerly convict a man who raped a woman. I would make sure the evidence supported it and was clear, and put him away... What ticks me off is the RARELY used laws that are in place to punish the false accuser.
To be quite honest, I would convict only with great reluctance if the victim was a feminist. She obviously believes we men shouldn't have any rights, so why should we give a **** about hers? Those who would deny justice to others deserve none themselves.
As for the laws currently in place against false allegations, they are teethless, such as filing a false police report. Accusing someone falsely of a felony should be a felony. Just imagine the outcry among feminazis if any legislator should propose that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vince,
I appreciate your reply and agree with you on many points, but on some I disagree. I would welcome you to read my reply and after that give me your thoughts to my counterpoints.
You said: ( I don't know how to do the italics - sorry)
"This may be changing. For instance, the Kobe Bryant case is bringing rape shield laws to public attention. The public now knows the prosecution wants to bar the defense from cross-examining the accuser on her sexual history, even though it is obviously relevant. "
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the A.G. for Colorado has introduced MORE stringent "rape shield" laws due to the defense tactics. This is clear pandering and posturing on his part. When "rape shield" laws were enacted the CLEAR intent was to protect rape victims from harassment and shaming tactics. However, feminazis got the law expanded to include "sexual history", and they made this umbrella VERY wide. Now a woman who has done things that clearly would be very relevant to a rape charge (like having sex with 1-2 guys a day or two after her "truama") is "not relevant". That's B.S.
As most know here, I was falsely accused of this crime. I was innocent, and did no jail time, but it could have gone that way. Luckily for me I met possibly the only honest ADA working on rape cases. SHE wouldn't believe the woman's story (it was pretty ridiculous), but I was still kicked out of school.
Rape sheild is being misused and feminists are pushing hard for it to be expanded. Yes the general public knows what is happening in Kobe's trial, but they are being fed the story that this is the EXCEPTION and not a common practice.
Also, you said:
"The real problem, as I see it, is the brainwashing the public receives, "gotta follow the law..., gotta follow the law.., gotta follow the law". How to convince people that when the law is unjust it must not be followed?"
Total agreement. If the law is wrong, a NOT GUILTY is the only way to send the message. If a juror admits to thinking the law is unjust, the prosecution can ask that the jury verdict be voided and set aside. If the law is unjust or being clearly misused: just vote Not Guilty and don't say a word.
you said:
"To be quite honest, I would convict only with great reluctance if the victim was a feminist. She obviously believes we men shouldn't have any rights, so why should we give a **** about hers? Those who would deny justice to others deserve none themselves. "
Here I would disagree, somewhat. If a feminist was raped she is a rape victim. Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't get me wrong brother, I understand your feelings on this. For years the PC around me made me be silent as to what I had suffered, and when I got an outlet I spewed out some angry shit I had been storing up. But one of the things I truly respect about the MRA movement is our use of facts, fairness, and honest discourse on issue. I don't think anyone deserves to be raped, not even those who by tacit silence or vocal misandric attitudes have hurt men. Let the hate mongers stay in the feminist camp, we're about justice, truth, and solving the problem. That's what men do. Leave the "revenge" and hate to the Feminazis.
You said:
"As for the laws currently in place against false allegations, they are teethless, such as filing a false police report. Accusing someone falsely of a felony should be a felony. Just imagine the outcry among feminazis if any legislator should propose that! "
AMEN TO THAT! I think the punishment for a false allegation should be the same amount of time the falsely accused would have spent in jail +1 day!. It's called a deterrent, and the current laws don't have one.
I await your reply.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve,
To get italics merely surround the word or phrase as follows (no spaces between symbols): less-than-sign capital-I greater-than-sign (words in italics) less-than-sign slash capital-I greater-than-sign. (For boldface use capital-B instead of capital-I).
My point about rape shield laws was that the Kobe case is bringing them to public attention. Now, at least, the public is aware that they exist. Of course the feminazis and fem-boys will try to spin this as much as they can; that's only to be expected. But this development is at least an important first step in the right direction. Especially when the evidence the prosecution wants to exclude is so clearly relevant. It's going to be very difficult to portray this as a mere exception because the law is the law.
Moreover the last poll I saw the majority of respondents believed Kobe is innocent, or at least shouldn't be convicted. Thus many people are going to see the AG's action as merely a tool to help him get more convictions for the sake of his political future.
The dangers with open and up-front jury nullification you state are certainly true, as is the "gotta follow the law" mentality. However the way around this is the fact that juries are allowed to draw inferences from witnesses' failure to testify. So, with rape shield laws the way the are, the failure of one alleging rape to testify regarding her sexual history should be inferred to mean she has something to hide. And if she does testify about it on direct, than she can be cross-examined about it.
About the feminist rape victim, I said I would vote to convict with reluctance. I would still vote to convict. You are absolutely correct that two wrongs don't make a right. However, if she has no concern at all about innocent men going to prison on rape charges (where they are quite likely to be raped themselves) then I would argue that, in a cosmic sense, she does deserve to be raped. What goes around comes around. She will get no sympathy or compassion from me, even if she does get justice. That's what I really meant.
Let the hate mongers stay in the feminist camp, we're about justice, truth, and solving the problem. That's what men do. Leave the "revenge" and hate to the Feminazis.
Amen to that. The biggest thing we have going for us is that feminism is based on lies, and we're about the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has or will the Commission make false allegations of rape and rape shield laws one of its priorty issues?
New Hampshire has a great opportunity to lead the nation in bringing civil rights to a new height. It should not let the opportunity slip away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Has or will the Commission make false allegations of rape and rape shield laws one of its priorty issues?"
No, it's not in our legislative mandate to cover this issue. Our mission is to study the effects of fatherlessness, men's health, and the education of boys and young men. Without any funding, we're going to have a hard enough time even addressing these issues adequately. :(
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys have to have a narrow focus at first. I completely understand. First we get some issues addressed and push back the feminazi lies and "studies". Once the feminazis are shown as the liars they are it will be easier for us to tackle the thornier issues as the feminazis will have lost credibility.
I understand why you have to take the direction you are taking. And I ask you to send ANOTHER "Thanks!" to the guys on the commision. Seriously, tell them that another man (who doesn't even LIVE in N.H.) has read of their work and thanks them. Moral support counts for a lot, plz pass it on.
Keep up the good work.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.gazette.net/200411/montgomerycty/state/ 205884-1.html
For those readers who live in Maryland it seems by the news link above that it will soon be easier to get more men in prison for decades over accusations of rape. Force will no longer be a criteria for actually proving rape. Mere accusation by the poor victim will suffice. In other words you are guilty until you somehow prove you are not. Nor will the marriage contract be a barrier to prosecution. Now all the wifie poo has to do is cry rape and off you will go to prison for 20 years or so.
We just don't have a high enough percentage of the male population in this country in prison and this type of legislavetion(sic!)will help remedy that problem. This country is really getting sicker by the day because of misandric feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
House Bill 923, introduced by Del. Anthony G. Brown (D-Dist. 25) of Mitchellville in February, would change the legal definition of rape, eliminating the need for force to be present...
"This bill is about respecting what victims of sexual violence say and experience," said Lisae C. Jordan, legislative counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, based in Arnold.
Just how is there "violence" without "force"? Oh, I forgot, "violence" occurs whenever women regret having sex for any reason.
Anyway, here is what Maryland men should do if this law passes: everytime you have sex, at some point say the word "no". Your wife or girlfriend will then be a rapist! Feminists have offered us the opportunity to hoist them on their own petard and we should take advantage of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:29 PM March 12th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"In many ways, we've made enormous strides since 1975," Goldwater said. "But we're still fighting a lot of the same battles to make sure the code reflects today's culture."
In which some men are still stupid enough to have sex with a woman without running a background check, getting a signed contract, and filming the whole affair? Yup, in todays culture, we're all like porn stars.
And forget about sex to your favorite bonk music. Remember, "no no" sounds close to "o o" and ya gotta be ready to pull out at any moment or you might get 10 years in the slammer for rape.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
