ok maybe im too radical,but i think that pedofills dont deserve trial,if there is obvious evidence they should be send to the chair,maybe not necessaraly gas chamber would do also,because they are never cured,they gonna molest another child,so call it a public service

Originally posted by adnachiel21
ok maybe im too radical,but i think that pedofills dont deserve trial,if there is obvious evidence they should be send to the chair,maybe not necessaraly gas chamber would do also,because they are never cured,they gonna molest another child,so call it a public service

Define obvious evidence. And if the evidence isn't obvious?

If everyone thought like you we wouldn't be the land of the free pal.

Originally posted by adnachiel21
ok maybe im too radical,but i think that pedofills dont deserve trial,if there is obvious evidence they should be send to the chair,maybe not necessaraly gas chamber would do also,because they are never cured,they gonna molest another child,so call it a public service

Wow, pedophiles don't deserve a trial? Do you even know what the purpose of a trial is? It is to determine if "obvious evidence" supports a conviction. The whole purpose of a trial is to determine guilt based upon the evidence presented. So without this trial, who's responsible for determining whether said evidence is legit, the victims? I hope not. This country would fall apart if the victims were the judge's of the accused. Before DNA testing, many people were incarcerated because of victim statements. Some have been released for being wrongly convicted. That is just as much an injustice as letting a guilty man free.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
intrepid, which councel are you referring to? Defense or prosecution?

Defense.

OK,

well as Jso pointed out, that wasn't the case. Each translator had their own reasons for not taking part in the case. If we're going to be mad at someone, maybe it should be them.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Btw, the prosecution had found 3 previous translators for this guy:

The first one couldn't tolerate the gory details
The second one was chronically late
The third one had work issues that interfered.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
OK,

well as Jso pointed out, that wasn't the case. Each translator had their own reasons for not taking part in the case. If we're going to be mad at someone, maybe it should be them.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Btw, the prosecution had found 3 previous translators for this guy:

The first one couldn't tolerate the gory details
The second one was chronically late
The third one had work issues that interfered.

I couldn't find a reference to this in either jso's post or the source material. Did I miss it? If not do you know where it is? I would like to check something out.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

A court-appointed psychiatrist recommended that an interpreter be appointed and judges who handled subsequent hearings heeded that advice.

So it was the court who determined the need for the interpreter.

Thanks for the link, very informative. I'm wondering why a psychiatrist would determine this? This doesn't seem to fall under their purview.

An interesting point in that article:

Police arrested Kanneh, of Gaithersburg, in August 2004 after witnesses told police he assaulted the girl multiple times. He spent one night in jail and was released on a $10,000 bond with the restriction that he have no contact with minors.

I wonder what eyewitness has to say about that.

The thing about appeals is that they have to prove that the judge did something illegal. If she was legally allowed to do this, then he's still scott free.

The prosecution should have made sure that the guy who was constantly late was on time more often. Maybe the judge could have held him in contempt of court or something.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The thing about appeals is that they have to prove that the judge did something illegal. If she was legally allowed to do this, then he's still scott free.

No, that is not true. Appeals courts always have full ability to override judges' ruling on findings of law in such of a procedural matter.

Yeah, one night in jail isn't much at all, but he still has the right to a speedy trial, and if the courts can't give him that, then they've failed in their duty.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
No, that is not true. Appeals courts always have full ability to override judges' ruling on findings of law in such of a procedural matter.

How so? It was my understanding that in order to make it to the appeals court the person seeking the appeal has to prove that there is grounds for appeal in the first place.

And that usually means more than just disagreeing with a ruling. But they're lawyers, I'm sure they know what they're doing (even though they didn't the first time around)

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
How so? It was my understanding that in order to make it to the appeals court the person seeking the appeal has to prove that there is grounds for appeal in the first place.

I think you're thinking of reversing a jury decision. Of course the Constitution explicitly forbids overturning a not guilty jury verdict, but a guilty verdict usually stands as proceedings that end in a jury verdict are presumed to be correct, a gross error must be found in the way the judge ran the case to overturn it and order a new trial.

But this procedural dismissal based on purely legal procedural reasons will not be presumed to be correct by an appeals court. If a higher court takes the case, they will look at the legal reasons behind the judge's dismissal from a totally fresh perspective.


It's basically a difference between a finding of fact and a finding of law.

[edit on 7/23/2007 by djohnsto77]

They might be able to make a case(proceedural) that the court calling for an interpreter was incorrect. That seems to the sticking point and they might be able to sell that.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Yeah, one night in jail isn't much at all, but he still has the right to a speedy trial, and if the courts can't give him that, then they've failed in their duty.

Just to add real quick here guys.. They where going to lock me up for no less than 5 years in prison for not paying my taxes!!!
Yet people can rape and hurt a child and spend 1 day in jail.. I think IM going to be sick here.. Honestly my head is spinning here.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
Besides he should have been held until an interpreter could have been found.

Does that mean indefinitely? The case was pending for 3 years, and they couldn't find an interpreter in that time. 3 years is certainly not a speedy trial, which is one of the rights granted us in the constitution.

If we held him until an interpreter could be found that would open a can of worms that I don't think we want opened. It means that we could hold anyone who doesn't speak English fluently until the state finds someone who speaks their native language. This could lead to massive abuse of the system.

Well if they could not find an interpreter with the State Department right down the road which they probably didn't even try...then it sounds like complete waste of tax payers dollars. This again shows a do nothing system.

Originally posted by zysin5
Just to add real quick here guys.. They where going to lock me up for no less than 5 years in prison for not paying my taxes!!!
Yet people can rape and hurt a child and spend 1 day in jail.

2 words. The Government wants their money!!....I mean 5 words.

Besides, if there was something that blocked you from getting a speedy trial you would have had the same punishment as this guy most likely. It's not about the crime, it's about the way the crime was tried in the courts. There are people who commit minor drug offenses that end up doing more time than murderers. That's why the system sucks.

I think in a case like this we need to take justice into our own hands. Someone need to protect the little children if the judges are not going to do it. If you see the pervert that did this in the street, beat his ass down. Let him know that he is not coming to America and getting away with (...)! I have never been so ashamed of the American justice system. They need to go back to his high School and College and find the intepreter that he used when he was using our tax dollars to get an education.

``````````````````
Removed odious expletive

[edit on 24/7/07 by masqua]