Child Rapist Goes Free Because Court Can't Find Interpreter

yeah, way to go, let's just go around beating innocent people. That would certainly make a nice country to live in.

It's cases like this that really test the strength of our justice system, and our own freedom. Had this guy been caught shoplifting or something else small, no one would have thought twice. However this involves two of the most destructive and disgusting acts that can be done. Not only did he allegedly abuse and molest someone, but that someone was an innocent child.

The initial and expected response is to sting the bastard up! But then what does that show of us as a supposedly advanced and civilized society. If we can put the rule of law before our personal feelings, then we have shown that our resolve is strong, and unwavering, even in the face of the most despicable acts.

That's not to say we should do nothing. It only means that we need to play the best hand we have, without cheating or breaking the rules. If that means that the good guys lose once in a while, then so be it.

Hey Intrepid: You asked what I thought about tha fact that the accused was released on a 10k bond after one day in jail. Here is what I think:

There is only ONE purpose for bail, only one: To insure that the accused show up for trial, that is all. If a person has no local ties, no address, no stability, no job, no one to show that he has some assurance that he will be unlikley to flee, then that person is usually given a very high bond.

This accused certainly had a history in the country and the State of MD. The case was probably, at first, just a run of the mill child endangerment report and it took time for interviews, evidence collection, etc. If the ONLY witness was a child, then the Judge who assigned the bond probably felt that with no more than an eyewitness, and a child 7 years old at that, they were going to have a hard time showing probable cause at all in levels needed to sustain a conviction, thus the lower bond.

Bonds are NOT to punish or keep someone charged with a serious crime in jail..not at all. It is ONLY to assure. to the greatest degree possible, that an accused is likley to show up for his court dates, that's all. And it seems that the guy DID show up for hearings over three years!! Had he been the type to run, he could have slipped away and maybe gotten out of the country.

But he stayed, showed up for court, did all he was instructed to do by the court, and after THREE YEARS of waiting for the Prosecutors to make a case, he finally was discharged by the Court because he could not get a fair trial, even by the testimony of the States witnesses!! If a psychiatrist could not communicate with him well enough to show that he had a comprehension of the language good enough to assist in his defense, then no wonder that the State failed to prove it's case.

Ignore the ignorant and vacant replies here that call for mob justice and lynching; they deserve no notice, it is stupid and foolish to destroy your own protections just to get revenge on a person that may be entirely innocent. Only a fair trial can find guilt or impose a sentence; anyone who calls for street justice is not a friend of the law, the Constitution or society. This world does NOT need more idiots running around hanging people who they THINK are guilty despite no trial or evidence. What makes these geniuses think that THEY have the insight to know who is guilty?Intuition?

Anyone with any sense of foresight knows that if one man or woman cannot get a fair trial, then none of us can. Emotion is a killer,a tyrant, a murderer; when we allow emotion to cloud any issue, it always shows us how silly we were to ever include it in rational debate; it is not suited to intellectual discourse. We have to protect the ALLEGED rapist, child molester, pedophile or any other accused against the system turning against US. NEXT TIME maybe YOU will be falsely accused of a crime and be desperate for the chance to fully show you are innocent; even if a person IS guilty we still muist protect everyone lest ANYONE find themselves facing an angry mob ready to kill rather than a calm and orderly process to determine guilt or innocence.

I HATE sick freaking whacko's as much as any parent, I am all for drastic sentences, life with no chance of release, for anyone who assaults sexually, in any way, another human being, most especially a child. But better make damned sure that you have the right guy, lest the real monster continue to stalk while the innocent man sits in prison. It does NOT help society or the rule of law to assume guilt or prejudice a trial. No matter how terrible the crime, no matter how awful the offenses, we must ALWAYS give the accused the best trial possible, with no shortcuts or lack of ability for the accused to respond and understand. Only that way can we rest easy knowing that the person doing the time, is actually the one who did the crime.

By reading a few posts from the blood lust crowd, you can see how easy it is for a ' group ' of people to turn into a mob of killers; all is takes is someone to yell and shout and stir up EMOTIONS, find a victim who seems to be the most dangerous and despicable human ever born, and ignore the law and the rules of civilized conduct; voila!! You have a lynch mob, a rope party, murderers with a crowd behind them for anonimity.

Of course no decent and civilized society can allow such idiocy and rampant law breaking so we insist on courts and laws among men and not the rule of the mob. Amazing that so many people can be so shortsighted and ignorant of history ..they would actually throw our blessed Constitution away to satisfy their revenge and base emotions, their bloodlust.

Take your pick: Who would YOU rather be tried by, a court with laws and standards or the lynch mob with only hatred in it's eyes and a burning desire for revenge, regardless of guilt? Some people just cannot comprehend that they may some day hear that the bell that they toll for others, may just begin to toll for THEM. Then we would see a total and abrupt change in their willingness to give up basic protections for ANYONE. Easy to shout and whine when it is the OTHER guy facing the rope,eh? But put YOU there and you would be screaming to high heaven for your Rights.

Thank God that the judge is this case saw the light: If the Prosecution could not put a case together in THREE YEARS, then there is no way they can ever do it, no way. The Prosecutors just wanted this to drag on forever no doubt due to several factors: witness memory and reliability after years of the State stalling the trial, collection and maintenance of evidence, and many other factors that only attorneys are equipped to deal with, etc. No one knows how a trial may have ended; maybe a conviction and maybe not.

But after three years of waiting, due process and the speedy trial laws were absolutely violated and the Judge did the ONLY thing he could do without making his Court a Star Chamber; he dismissed charges because the State had failed, terribly failed, not only the alleged victim but the accused and the citizens that the State supposedly protects us from crime. NO BLAME should accrue to the accused, he did all he was told to by the court; the Prosecutors failed miserable to take the case seriously until it was too late. Justice WAS done in this case, at least for the accused.

Justice, not JUST US !!

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Hey Intrepid: You asked what I thought about tha fact that the accused was released on a 10k bond after one day in jail. Here is what I think:

Pretty dank, that jail cell of his huh?

Need I say more?

Ok, OK. I assumed he sat in jail for those three years, I was mistaken. But the real issue is that he was facing life in prison, had his reputation shattered, no doubt was in danger in his neighborhood from the ' bloodlust crowd', etc. Not an easy time, but better than jail for sure.

A defendant has a MUCH harder time meeting with attorney's and getting a case together while sitting in jail; unless a person poses a flight risk, they are better off not in jail, as it interferes with a defense to a great degree.

I also am pretty sure that the Judge is well aware of the publicity and outrage about this case and gave the Prosecution EVERY CHANCE to make a case; after three years of not producing the elements for a fair trial, the right thing was done and the case dismissed. The fact that the accused did not sit in a ' dank jail ' for those three years is a bonus for him and shows that bonds need not be refused or so high that they insure that an accused sits in jail without need, regardless of the severity.

If the man HAD sat in jail for those three years, it would have added to the tragedy, not made it more palatable because the guy ' got some time at least '. People who are not convicted should not get ANY time in jail, unless they pose a flight risk, a real risk and not just possible. Prosecutors LOVE to see a defendant sit in jail because it means that he has less of a chance at a thorough defense; attorneys will make far fewer visits to the jail then they will meet with clients at their offices; it is just a fact of life.

So the end result will be, in my opinion, that an appeals court will side with the judge and refuse to reinstate charges. puiblicity and public outcry should have NOTHING whatsoevcer to do with the proceedings of the Court and it's decisions. Three years is long enough, way too long in fact, to bring a case to a jury with ALL of the requirements and prerequisites for a fair trail in place as dictated by the Court.

No doubt the Judge is very sensitive to the feelings and emotions of a case like this, but the law, due process, a fair trial, are NOT something that can be altered and avoided or done away with to suit the cries of the mob. Still not ONE person has addressed the questions I asked: If YOU were the accused, would you be OK with getting anything less than your FULL rights observed? Can guilt really be known before a fair trial? Can the assertions of a Prosecutor be trusted as evidence in and of itself?
If you answered YES to any of the above then you are NOT ready to be a juror and are NOT conversant in the law and it's protections.

What about the Duke ' rape ' prosecution? No one wants to touch that one, eh? That is because it shows how much power a Prosecutor has and how it can be misused to infer guilt and to obstruct the defense. What if the prosecution in this case had as much ' real evidence ' as the Duke Prosecutor did, meaning NONE? Then what? Then you have a trumped up charge with little or no real evidence, but lot's of pretrial publicity to sway a jury to believe things NOT IN EVIDENCE . Unless the prosecution is totally honest and above board and only interested in seeing justice done and not in making headlines or primping for a political slot, the need for close scrutiny by an impartial Court is even MORE critical.

Cop's cannot be trusted to be unbiased, prosecutors cannot be trusted to be unbiased; only a jury can be unbiased, and only then if the laws are followed pertaining to evidence and publicity. Inflammatory statements by the prosecution and parroted by the press can ruin any chance at a fair trial, and so the prosecutors must be very careful not to prejudice a trial. In many cases, they do just that purposely and it takes a fair judge to see the patterns and abuses and stop them so the accused can get a fair hearing.

Again, the right decision was made in this case. To allow unlimited time to try a case is abusive and dangerous; the people who could NOT make bail would simply rot until the prosecutors decided to try the case or throw it out, and believe me they would be in NO hurry to release the accused regardless of lack of evidence. That is why an impartial judge is the backbone of our system. and the judge here did whjat he had to do to keep the rest of us safe from abusive treatment and unfair trials.

eyewitness, you completely missed my point. You have been shown that you were completely wrong about certain things, ie: his being in a dank jail for three years. You were shown that you were just plain making stuff up to cast blame on the prosecuters:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anything.

In all of your words and defense for this poor man that suffered at the hands of those rat bastard(my words) prosecuters, you never considered the fact that he may have manipulated the interview with the psychiatrist. It was even shown that this guy can speak English. Easy enough to do and I wouldn't put it past his defense team from telling him to play down his fluency.

Now, you have all the sympathy in the world for this guy. Fine. I've answered ALL of your questions. I'm going to ask my single question for the 3rd time. I don't want any exposition on the Duke case or due proccess. I just want you to answer this one SIMPLE question.

If it turns out that he IS a pedophile and rapes one or more children in the future, how will that make you feel?

Originally posted by intrepid
If it turns out that he IS a pedophile and rapes one or more children in the future, how will that make you feel?

If I could answer this..

And Eyewitness, don't let my answer prevent you from answering too.

If he is a Pedophile and if he did rape that little girl, then that sucks, and he deserves to be beaten senseless many times. But that's not what is at issue here. What is at issue is that in a court of law the man is innocent until proven otherwise.

If he lied about his ability to speak English, then he lied, and if they can prove that, it's another charge on his plate. But as far as the judge was concerned, there was no definite evidence to prove that he lied, and as far as the judges were concerned there was a need for an interpreter. And it was up to the prosecution to get one in there who was on time, could stomach the proceedings, and could make the time to do his/her job.

Does it sicken me that he could do this again? Yes. But what is more sickening is the prospect of future defendants who can't speak English being held for three years because they don't have an interpreter, and can't afford to make bail.

This certainly is a tough call to make.

Agreed, this could be a GREAT injustice... however...

Whats at stake here is your right to an interpreter. Without that right, the deaf, the blind, the mute, and the foreign have no right to stand up for themselves in court.
That right cannot be revoked.

What can we do about it? We can't let him go... but by right, we cannot go forth with the trial, nor can we detain him for an extended period of time because of this.

This is where we teeter on the edge of creating more injustices in the future, by bringing justice to this one man.

Dangerous ground.

Some facts:

• He had already waved his right to a speedy trial by asking for a continuance
  
  
• He attended both high school and community college in the United States in English
  
  
• English is the sole official language in the country of his origin
  
  
• It is the Court's responsibility to find an interpreter, not the State's. The Court shouldn't dismiss the State's case due to their incompetence in finding one
  
  
• News organizations were able to find multiple available interpreters of the language in question in a matter of hours.
  
  
• He wasn't being detained in jail, he was out on bail
  
  

Given all these facts, it's really hard to see how his civil rights were being violated in any way. I'm pretty confident that the State's appeal will be upheld by a higher court.

Lets look at each fact logically.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Some facts:

He had already waved his right to a speedy trial by asking for a continuance

This only gives the court an extra X(value of the continuance) number of days in addition to the 180 limited by the state. It doesn't negate it all together unless specified by the court. Did he waive that right knowingly? And, if he didn't have an interpreter, can e confirm that he know exactly what he was doing?

He attended both high school and community college in the United States in English

Do we know that it was in English and not ESL? Also, that doesn't mean he's fluent in the language.

English is the sole official language in the country of his origin

His specific tribe doesn't speak English though. This would cause severe limitations in future similar cases.

It is the Court's responsibility to find an interpreter, not the State's. The Court shouldn't dismiss the State's case due to their incompetence in finding one

Logically speaking....What?

News organizations were able to find multiple available interpreters of the language in question in a matter of hours.

Irrelevant. The news organizations may have resources the state does not. Resources that the state legally can't use.

He wasn't being detained in jail, he was out on bail

Bail doesn't remove the right to a speedy trial. It just means you don't have to sit in a cell.

I'm curious how this is going to turn out.

Honestly, I could not say it any better than Rasobasi420 did. That says it all really. I would feel the same as I would anytime I hear about some horrible offense; what you are missing is that it does NOT protect us to deny rights and take shortcuts in the due process rights of the accused.

Otherwise it is a lynch mob mentality; revenge. Many here would hang this guy HOPING that he was the guilty one. That is not the way we operate here. God forbid. And by the way, I have NO sympathy for this guy personally; he very well may be a horrible monster, but that does NOT change the FACT that I, and YOU, are NOT competent to judge guilt; ONLY a court of law can do so and the COURT has spoken.

If that guy got out and committed some horrific crime..what would I say to the parents? Other than sincere sympathies, I would express my rage at the PROSECUTION for not finding an interpreter who could conduct the trial. If a translator ran out of the Court upset, maybe, just maybe do you think that the Prosecutors office did NOT explain the evidence and the case and warn her that it would contain graphic and emotionally charged testimony? Maybe after a year or two into this the Prosecutors office got lazy and stopped calling and trying to get one qualified.

Lot's of maybes. eh? But one area in which there are NO maybe's is this: An accused has the right to a fair and impartial trial, and to understand the proceedings against him. A COURT appointed adviser recommended that he did NOT speak enough English to be able to assist his attorney's; that is a RIGHT, and not up for negotiation. No Maybe about it.

After three years, the Prosecution still could not present a case that met the requirements of the court. At some point a Judge has to step in and say ENOUGH. The Prosecutor could have let it go on forever rather than either do the job right or dismiss the charges. At least it appears that way from the evidence. 3 years. Most prosecutors can have a case ready in 180 days as required by law, but these guys took three years and still no case. No interpreter, no case.

If the State had taken this case seriously, they WOULD have found a competent translator and prepared them well and explained the case and maybe gotten a conviction, if the evidence we hear about from the Prosecutor is as strong as he leads us to believe. Of course there are those who will not talk about the Duke prosecutor, because it points out clearly that Prosecutors are very able to violate the rules and the law in their jobs. They can say anything they want OUTSIDE the court; what counts is what goes on INSIDE the court, where the Prosecutors in this case failed to make it happen. BOTTOM line; Prosecutors are paid to collect evidence and prosecute allaged criminals in a timely and efficient manner, according to the law and the rules of the court.

They failed to do that and no one can place the blame anywhere else. the buck stops WHERE? At the desk of the person that brought charges against a citizen. had him arrested, defamed and dragged through three years of legal limbo before finally allowing him to go free due to failure to perform due diligance. Plain and simple.

There are people so awful and so soulless and evil that I would be fine with standing them up against a wall and blowing their brains out; but before I could pull the trigger and know that it was just, I would have to know that every effort, EVERY EFFORT, was made to give the man a fair trial. If he could not get one, then that is the price we pay for our protections against a mob putting US up against the wall regardless of whether or not we got a fair trial. Let him go.

I believe that OJ Simpson is guilty as hell. But I believe that the jury returned the right verdict because the attorneys were able to place doubt, substantial doubt, on every single bit of evidence that was presented. When the doubt is such that it is a tie, the tie goes to the runner, the accused.

I bet if the guy does NOT go out raping and such, some will say that it is because he is scared of the 2nd time being worse for him; others will say that it points to his innocence in the first place. Who would be right? Who knows? Only the accused, and he has denied guilt and the State has FAILED to prove his guilt. He is presumed INNOCENT. Maybe this, maybe that..all the maybe's in the world do not add up to ONE reason for due process to be violated.

The system is far from perfect..but it does give basic protections, and those must NOT be thrown away in that name of MAYBE he did and MAYBE he didn't. No maybe's, onbly the facts. And in this case, the fact is that the State failed the parents, the child, the accused and the law. Shame on them, the State and prosecutors, for FAILING to bring a case to court that met the standards of justice. THAT is their job, and they did not do it well at all. Had they done so, this thread would not be here and pehaps a dangerous predator would be in prison; or, a weak and baseless case would result in an aquittal. Either way, we now must live with the results of the States lack of care, and so must any alleged victims.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Honestly, I could not say it any better than Rasobasi420 did. That says it all really. I would feel the same as I would anytime I hear about some horrible offense; what you are missing is that it does NOT protect us to deny rights and take shortcuts in the due process rights of the accused.

Otherwise it is a lynch mob mentality; revenge. Many here would hang this guy HOPING that he was the guilty one. That is not the way we operate here. God forbid. And by the way, I have NO sympathy for this guy personally; he very well may be a horrible monster, but that does NOT change the FACT that I, and YOU, are NOT competent to judge guilt; ONLY a court of law can do so and the COURT has spoken.

If that guy got out and committed some horrific crime..what would I say to the parents? Other than sincere sympathies, I would express my rage at the PROSECUTION for not finding an interpreter who could conduct the trial.

So you are saying that if this guy reoffends you are going to sleep well in the fact that the prosecution screwed up. That says nothing to the life sentence that futher abused, RAPED, persons might goes through. I hope that doesn't happen to any of your kin. Even though that might give you some insight on this.

If a translator ran out of the Court upset, maybe, just maybe do you think that the Prosecutors office did NOT explain the evidence and the case and warn her that it would contain graphic and emotionally charged testimony?

This DID happen. A translator couldn't take the graphic details of the case. Does that sound like a "weak case"?

Maybe after a year or two into this the Prosecutors office got lazy and stopped calling and trying to get one qualified.

More supposition. Will YOU ever see that the victim might actually be a victim? I've gotta say I'm getting sick reading these replies.

Lot's of maybes. eh?

Yup, lots of maybes. Why can't you see the victim at all. Only the possible victimizer?

You still didn't answer my question. 4th time. What will you think, or feel, if this person rapes another, or more, person(s)? What about their life sentence of shame and guilt?

Will you ever answer this question? Do I need to stand on a soap box? Those aren't hard questions to answer.

I answered it as plainly as a person could have. Read my reply. I said that I would give the parents my sympathy and tell them that the Prosecutors had three years to make a case and failed to, for whatever reason.

You are wanting me to say that I would feel guilty and ashamed and regretting my words if the guy went out and did some bad thing. I would NOT!! Of course I would feel for the victim, any victim. But when I say ' alleged victim ' I mean the one in this case. until a guilty verdict has been rendered, the status of the truth regarding a witness is unknown. Reemember Tawana Bradley, the girl who claimed a bunch of cop's raped her? Made a big stink and got big names involved and turned out to be a lie.

I am NOT saying that the alleged ( unproven ) victim in this case is lying; that is up to a JURY to decide after testimony. I am saying that until there is a fair trial, no one is guilty. Why are you assuming that this man is guilty before his trial? ONLY evidence ratified and tested can be called real evidence and you are just so outraged at the crime that you cannot see straight.

How would I feel. FEELINGS are NOT a part of the justice system. You are trying to make this an emotional issue and not a legal one. I feel FINE when I hear that rights are protected no matter what. I feel BADLY whenh anyone is hurt, espoecially a child. I am human; but I am not so easily swayed by one sided stories and excuses by Prosecutors who fail to MAKE IT HAPPEN. Sure it's tough, sure it's hard, but they get the big paychecks as attorneys to make it happen. they failed.

If this guy gets on the street and lives an exemplary life, what would YOU say? What if the story turns out to be that some OTHER guy is really guilty? What would YOU say then? You are so sure that this man is guilty..but yet the court said he cannot get a fair trial and the state ran out of YEARS to play around.

Tragdies happen, sadly. But worse to compound them by making a mockery of the system by changing the rules mid game because your side is losing. The appeal will go nowhere, three years is enough. The state failed. Period.

Due Process...hmph.

I'm still thinking about what UM Gazz said:

"They had witnesses, and DNA evidence, yet they set him free because they can't find an interpreter?

I could care less if a person was from Alpha Centuri and couldn't speak a syllable of English. If a persons' chromosomes ended up at the scene of a crime, all the more reason to hold that person in custody.

Are the prisons so full up now and legal beurocrats are bound & gagged by red tape, that the courts 'pull a Barrabas' like at Jesus' trial?

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Are the prisons so full up now and legal beurocrats are bound & gagged by red tape, that the courts 'pull a Barrabas' like at Jesus' trial?

Remember, it's that red tape that keeps them from powers that be from barging into your house at night and disappearing you.

They did NOT have witnesses and DNA!!! They ' alleged ' that they had DNA and witnesses. EXAMPLE:

[exwww.democraticunderground.com.../ex]

Read the comments and see that the PROSECUTOR said HE had DNA also; what was not mentioned by the Prosecutor was that the DNA CLEARED the suspects. And the witnesses he had were lying and proven to be so. So it is plain and clear that Prosecutors can and DO lie, obstruct justice, tamper with evidence, withhold evidence that tends to prove the innocence of the accused, etc.

I am NOT saying that this is the case in the instant subject matter; just that as long as it DOES happen and CAN happen, we CANNOT take the words of a partisan player, a Prosecutor, too seriously. They have an agenda, get convictions. They are SUPPOSED to seek only justice, but that is a joke and anyone who believes that Prosecutors are neutral and fair and living in a dream world.

Who can say that if the case came to Court that the evidence would have been so thin, or rejected by the Judge for various technical reasons, that a case would have been imp[ossible to prove. Would you put a 7 year old kid ( well, 10 now) on the stand after three years of waiting and subject the kid to the vigorous cross examination by a defense attorney? If so you had better have the witness thoroughly prepared and all your cards ready to play.

Three years later and no hand to put down on the table. Three years and no competent interpreter. By the way, there is a difference between a ' translator ' and an ' interpreter '. An interpreter does not have to have the necessary skills to relate the language exactly and have a vast command of it; relating is a summary and does not have to be exact. A translator, on the other hand, must have a full and complete knowledge of the language and be able to quote words exactly and know the meanings of colloquialism,s , slang etc. To find a translator that fit all the needs of this trial was the job of the Prosecutor; if the Court insists on a translator then the State must find one. That person would be getting paid by the State, and would be beholden to faithfully represent the words spoken regardless of anything else.

To believe that in three years not ONE qualified translator could be found that could do the job and fulfill the expectations of the Court is ludicrous. they simply did not try hard enough, that's all. Had they spent the time and affort and money they COULD have come up with a way to try this man fairly in three years. They FAILED TO DO SO.

Some people here would say " Keep him there forever ", never imagining THEMSELVES facing such a horror; all of the people here screaming for blood would be screaming for the exact opposite if it were THEY who were on the receiving end of a screwed up deal. Rights must be protected for one, or they cannot be there for any at all.

So, there is NO EVIDENCE that this man has committed a crime, NONE. The Prosecutor, just like in the Duke ' rape ' case, SAID he had all kinds of DNA evidence, he SAID that the defendants were, for all practicle purposes, guilty. He hinted at overwhelming proof of guilt. And today, he is in front of a Judge facing criminal charges for ' intentioally deceiving ' the Court and public. Who says that this case is any different? NO ONE CAN, because UNTIL the case has been tried in a court of law and evidence sorted and admitted as such, and witness testimony has been heard and judged can anyone believe what some Prosecutor says. THEY LIE!!

In any event, if the alleged victim was indeed assaulted by this man, I hope that he gets his just dessert's from Karma or whatever, but to drag on a case year after year demeans the system and justice in general. If the man is innocent, which is possible, no one can say it is not given the facts above, then a great miscarriage of justice has been prevented.

This country is above assumption of guilt and mock trials that sully the Constitution. Once in a while a bad guy gets away as the price we pay for a system that offers protections necessary to a free nation; it sucks, but it is the best way yet. Those of you hung on " what if , what if " may as well be playing a guessing game as no one knows what the future holds. You are PRESUMING GUILT beefore a trial!! That is UNAmerican and anti-Constitution and that is not the path of the wise choice, now is it?

If we have to ruin the system to get revenge on a man that has never had a chance to defend himself, we are pretty sad specimens of a democracy and can never point a finger at any totalitarian regime and say that they are bad; we are just as bad when we deny ANY rights to ANYONE under ANY circumstances.

Emotion versus reality. Fact versus allegation. Proof versus innuendo. Fair trials versus kangaroo courts set up to convict despite the law and rules and protections. Seperate the emotion from this debate and the truth is clear and obvious: WE must protect the worst and most hated people as we would ourselves, a variation on the Golden Rule, which always seems to work no matter where it is used. Give this man the kind of trial YOU would insist on, or admit that the rule of law and fairness and the Constitution mean less to you than naked vengeance and emotions ruling the day.

While I ' feel ' for ANY victim of a terrible crime, I also ' feel ' very strongly that we are heading down a very dangerous and slippery slope when we denigrate the system we rely on for OUR justice in order to demonize and castigate someone else; someone who has never even had a fait trial by the standards of the court itself. Fait trrial or NO trial.

THAT is what this boils down to, and the Judge saw plainly that the Prosecution was never going to be able to comply with the courts instructions; three years and still no case. Enough. More than enough.

Throw your emotions away and see this as a law professor would and you will soon see the wisdom in protecting the rights we have zealously. Any other way will lead to our demise as a free nation and our Rights will have been trasshed in the name of outrage and emotion and bloodlust. That is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and thank God for that. Blame the people who did not come through, did not perform, did not make the case. They damn well had long enough.

Once again, read the Duke case & see how low a Pros. can really go. Typical!!

Originally posted by eyewitness86


Once again, read the Duke case & see how low a Pros. can really go. Typical!!

The Duke case again. Didn't I say this was a different case? Still no answer to my BASIC question. WHY? I just want that question answered. Your empathy for the alleged accussed is well documented.

Now, no exposition, just an answer. For the fifth time.

How will YOU feel if this individual rapes one or more kids?

Edit to add: Besides blaming the prosecution, which is pretty evident in your posts.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by intrepid]

I haven't posted much but would like throw my thoughts in on this. I think that the question is entirely valid:

"How will YOU feel if this individual rapes one or more kids?"

Frankly, I see NO correlation between this case and the Duke case. That shouldn't even be brought up here.

If he does commit crimes in the future then perhaps the judge should be held as an accomplice? some sort of conspirator?

Travesties like this occur often. No one is held accountable except for the perpetrator.

THEY ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED. YOU CANNOT REHABILITATE A PEDIPHILE.

I hope that he is innocent. It's more likely that we will hear about him on the news again in a few years. Arrested for taking the innocence or life of another child.

nonameplease


[edit on 26-7-2007 by nonameplease]

Well the fact is, the prosecution is going to appeal the judge's decision, so they must be confident that they have a case.

Just to get a few things straight:

The defense attorney wanted the DNA and witness testimony thrown out. This was never ruled on, for those who may be confused with the intermingling of the Duke rape case details here.

On the morning that the judge made her decision, an interpreter had been sworn in and was present in the courtroom, which makes me wonder why the judge didn't realize this.

Probably the most troubling aspect of this is the fact that Kanneh could speak English well enough to converse with the police. So, we all know he was lying. This would mean that he did not need an interpreter to stand trial.

But he wouldn't understand all the legal jargon, you say.

To that, I say, so what? Since when is that a requirement to stand trial? And how many defendants actually have a solid grasp of legal principles. anyway? Does Joe, who dropped out of high school and now works on the docks? Or Monty, who lives in the ghetto?

The fact is, it was soley up to the judge to make this ruling. And she was negligent in this case. The prosecution will appeal, and this man will stand trial.

Originally posted by intrepid

How will YOU feel if this individual rapes one or more kids?

Edit to add: Besides blaming the prosecution, which is pretty evident in your posts.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by intrepid]

Pretty much the same as if anyone else who hasn't been convicted on such a charge would do the crime. You sound like this guy is more likely to commit such a crime than any other guy on the streets. That would be true if he'd be guilty, but since he isn't that argument is kind of vain.
And as for the blame, it goes for the system. Prosecutors, defense attorneys and judge. For this guy it would've been best thing to get the trial going and prove his innoncence or for the people if he is guilty. Unless of course there is some conspiracy to frame him, which wouldn't be unheard of. We never know.