FYI: "What a Rapist Said in Court Will Scare You"

Probably the DA is required to turn info, such as names and addresses of witnesses over to the lawyer for the accused. That makes sense, I suppose. In this case, however, the lawyer was also the accused. That makes no sense at all, ever. :(

How could the rapist consider HIMSELF to be a victim of society. He seems more like a victimizer.
 
Last edited:
Probably the DA is required to turn info, such as names and addresses of witnesses over to the lawyer for the accused. That makes sense, I suppose. In this case, however, the lawyer was also the accused.


You would think they might have made a motion for an EXCEPTION with the judge? :rolleyes:
 
SelenaKittyn said:
You would think they might have made a motion for an EXCEPTION with the judge? :rolleyes:


Problem is, if you deny him the information, while he is acting in the capacity of his own lawyer, you open up an avenue of appeal, based on proceedural things. In NY, all things considered, he might very well get the entire sentence overtunred on that technicality.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Problem is, if you deny him the information, while he is acting in the capacity of his own lawyer, you open up an avenue of appeal, based on proceedural things. In NY, all things considered, he might very well get the entire sentence overtunred on that technicality.
Amazing isn't it? :rolleyes:
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Classic case of "he needed killin".

More like a prime example of why a judge should be allowed a gun behind the podium. That way he can just shoot the idiot in the head and say case closed.
 
Ms.Breaker said:
More like a prime example of why a judge should be allowed a gun behind the podium. That way he can just shoot the idiot in the head and say case closed.



couldn't have said it any better!
 
So to hell with the Constitution, the 8th Amendment, proportionate justice, due process of law, proving that someone is actually guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and convicting them in a court of law? To hell with the rule of law? Well, I wish the Framers had bothered to INFORM me that charges of rape were exceptions to due process and deserved harsher penalties than murder or treason! That would have been useful information! :rolleyes:
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
So to hell with the Constitution, the 8th Amendment, proportionate justice, due process of law, proving that someone is actually guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and convicting them in a court of law? To hell with the rule of law? Well, I wish the Framers had bothered to INFORM me that charges of rape were exceptions to due process and deserved harsher penalties than murder or treason! That would have been useful information! :rolleyes:

Do us a favor? READ the first post of a thread before going all constitutional on us? If you read the article he was already found guilty. This was said at his sentencing.
 
Point taken on the conviction, but I don't regard rape as a capital offense, deserving of a harsher penalty than murder or treason! :rolleyes:
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
And here I thought that lynching was illegal. :rolleyes:


In fairness, I doubt the framers ever thought crossing t's and doting i's would take precedence over guilt or innocence. I do firmly belive the framers, if nothing else, were rooted in a fairly strong streak of common sense. I think they would be apalled at some of the things that go on in our legal system now.
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
Point taken on the conviction, but I don't regard rape as a capital offense, deserving of a harsher penalty than murder or treason! :rolleyes:

Never had it happen to you have you? :rolleyes:
 
I understand what you are saying, but I doubt that they would condone lynching, as Ms. Breaker has admitted to condoning.
 
Ms.Breaker said:
Never had it happen to you have you? :rolleyes:


That is irrelevant. Punishments can't be based on emotion. They must be based on the rule of law. We can't let passion or outrage control our decision-making process. A rape victim is traumatized, yes, but she can still have a life. A dead woman can't.
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
I understand what you are saying, but I doubt that they would condone lynching, as Ms. Breaker has admitted to condoning.

I condone the death penalty. If it can be done in a faster less costly way to the tax payers I'm all for it. How much does it cost to incarcerate and feed a criminal sentenced to die? Generally the cost of one bullet is cheaper.
 
Seems to me someone should help fund the move for the victim. I mean, is there some kind of policy for this- when defendant acts on his own behalf and gets access to all this personal info, does anyone ever tell the victim? Help the victim so they are safe after the fact? Seems to me that protecting the innocent is getting lost somewhere in the process.
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
That is irrelevant. Punishments can't be based on emotion. They must be based on the rule of law. We can't let passion or outrage control our decision-making process. A rape victim is traumatized, yes, but she can still have a life. A dead woman can't.

Point on emotion conceded.
 
Ms.Breaker said:
I condone the death penalty. If it can be done in a faster less costly way to the tax payers I'm all for it. How much does it cost to incarcerate and feed a criminal sentenced to die? Generally the cost of one bullet is cheaper.

Nothing against the death penalty, for murder and treason- AFTER a trial, that is.
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
Nothing against the death penalty, for murder and treason- AFTER a trial, that is.

No offense but if it's a repeat offender of any federal crime they should be deemed a burden on society and given the death penalty. No one gets framed for a federal crime multiple times. Hell three strikes, you're dead sounds fine to me.
 
Back
Top