Child Rapist Goes Free Because Court Can't Find Interpreter

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Some people don't diserve a fair trial. Rapists for instance, need to be hung, as hanging involves much more suffering than the average shooting death.


Sorry, had to delete half of what I said, as it would have been insulting to anyone believing that everyone diserves a fair trial...including rapists.


[edit on 27-7-2007 by saintnuke]




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Oh, well just one problem. How do you know someone is a rapist without a fair trial? Do you believe every accusation thrown into air and lynch the accused instantly? That's what a trial means, to determine guilt.
You're just looking at this with the emotional side of the brain, try using some basic logic instead



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Okay, you got me there. There needs to be a trial....however: "Witnesses and DNA evidence were prepared for a trial." DNA evidence is enough for a lynching.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   
We'll never really know what the prosecution has until there is a trial. DNA evidence isn't always absolute and the defendant has the right to question it's authencity and meaning.
I think the system screwed up big time. Now the guy is labeled guilty wheter or not he is. If he isn't then he'll be hunted by this for the rest of his life. If he is then the community is in danger. Big mistake.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   
The title of the topic says flat out that he is guilty, hence my reaction with my first post. It would really "suck" however if it was all some racial thing to begin with and the guy was innocent. Not something unheard of in america.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
THE TITLE IS MISLEADING and possibly slanderous and libelous. The title SHOULD have said " ALLEGED rapist goes free.". Or perhaps a more realistic headline would have been " Accused man protected by due process". THAT would be more honest and accurate than the one on this thread.

See how dangerous it is to assume? Just that false and misleading headline made at least one reader assume that the man WAS a rapist, and he is NOT!! At least not legally. Not before a fair trial!!

Anyone who says that trials are not needed for ANY offense, or alleged offense is howling mad if they think that it is a way to protect anyone. Suppose some person falsely accused YOU of some horrid crime, and you knew you were innocent. Would you tell the lynch mob that it was OK because you are a believer in non-judicial verdicts and murder as punishment? I thought not; you would scream to the high heavens that you wanted full due process: WHY cannot some people see that even ONE exception means that the whole system is gone, usless, ruined?

NO crime, no matter how shocking to the conscience, ios worthy of a lynch mob mentality; ALL charges merit a trial, a FAIR trial, and we cannot allow our emotions, which is all that this ' death without trial ' nonsense is about, to dstroy the system. then we ALL are unprotected, at the mercy of the mob.

No trial, no guilt. No fair trial, no trial. No trial without all due process rights intact. Otherwise, do not complain when they mob makes a mistake and grabs YOU for the rope party. Only a fait trial will allow guilt to be established, THEN you can punish the accused , not before.

Are we a nation of law or a nation of men doing whatever gets them the fastest fix on their vengeance and hate train ride ? Emotion has NO place in court or in life when a decision has to be made; emotion is the opposite of common sense and reality in most cases, and always in matters of the law.

And remember, SAYING that you have DNA and evidence is NOT true and actual; ONLY when evidence has been ADMITTED to the case can is be said to be evidence, before then it is all conjecture. Doesn't ANYONE care to comment on the Duke prosecutor who lied about the DNA evidence and witness evidence? Why not? Because it points out undenibly the fact that a Prosecutor can say anything he wants OUTSIDE of a trial, but when the matter gets to court, it can be a totally different state of affairs.

Remember Jose Padilla, the American citizen falsely accused by the US Govt. of having a plan to detonate dirty bombs and such? Well, as it turns out the Govt. had NO PROOF of that at all and simply charged him with something else ( after three years sitting in navy brigs being tortured and denied a trial.) . Why? Because they LIED about the dirty bomb evidence and when it came to court all they could do is bring some weak conspiracy charges. BUT, most of us remember the phony and lying charges from the first part of the case, and no doubt so did the jury. The intent was to PREJUDICE the case and that is illegal, morally wrong and a danger to all of us.

The fact is this: In three years a prosecution team could not provide the means for a fair trial despite many chances, and they failed. The accused is not guilty, as he was presumed not guilty by law and no trial was given him. I did not say he is innocent, I said he is NOT GUILTY, WHICH IS A DETERMINATION BY A COURT THAT GUILT IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. HOW can a person get a fair trial if assumptions are made and guilt is assumed? Answer: They cannot!!

Like many people I am enraged at horrific crimes, I have a daugher and 2 sons, and if anyone harmed them I would be looking for blood; but NOT in the form of a lynch mob or from a verdict from a kangaroo court hearing. No, I would want to KNOW that the person charged was guilty from the evidence and a fair trial, that way I could be assured that the right person was in jail and that the bad guy was not still walking the streets to strike again. ONLY a fair trial can provide that assurance.

Place emotions on the back burner and see the obvious: we had better not bite off our own nose's just to spite our face's. WE might need those protections someday and so we must preserve them for all of us, even the one's who seem to be very bad people; maybe especially them as the lowest denominator is usually the one that the system tends toward unless we keep a close vigil on the rights we cherish so much.

The right decision was made in this case; anything else would have demeaned the system and risked all of us in the future.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
they had to make room in the court for all the traffic tickets, after all thats all the currupt cops do around here these days. More money in it, MO MONEY MO MONEY MO MONEY....



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
For those saying that in this case due process is prevailing, they should keep in mind that the concept of due process can be quite maliable and is up to interpretation. In unusual cases like these, there are no hard and fast legal rules other than the courts should do what is reasonable or fair. If this case were before the US Supreme Court, Scalia and Thomas would literally ask the question, what would people in America and England in 1789 do. They might look to cases from that time where a foreigner or Native American was charged with a crime, but the court was unable to get an interpreter. I have not searched the books, but my guess would be that in 1789 they would not have been accomodating to a foreign criminal. Brennan would probably argue that the defendant in this case was not given due process because he was unable to assist in his own defense because he could not communicate with his lawyers. The other 6 justices would probably decide the case by trying to strike a balance between the right of the accused to participate in his own trial, and the practical considerations of providing interpreters in this situation.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The Supreme Court would NOT have to look back to ancient times for guidance on this issue; the laws that prevail are the culmination of centuries of decisions and they remain in force.

The right to a fair and speedy trial is one that is written in stone. There is no way a trial can be fair if it drags on forever. At some point a judge needs to put a halt to it and discharge the accused.

The Rights we have and plain and clear, and after three years the Court did NOT find a translator, yet could have. They blew it. Simple.

But the system cannot be bent to treat anyone differently, or we all are in jeopardy.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The Supreme Court would NOT have to look back to ancient times for guidance on this issue; the laws that prevail are the culmination of centuries of decisions and they remain in force.


While it is true that many judges share your opinion, Judges like Scalia and Thomas believer that the words "due process" as they appear in the constitution mean what they meant back in the US and England back in the 1700's.

{quote]Originally posted by eyewitness86

The right to a fair and speedy trial is one that is written in stone. There is no way a trial can be fair if it drags on forever. At some point a judge needs to put a halt to it and discharge the accused.

The Rights we have and plain and clear, and after three years the Court did NOT find a translator, yet could have. They blew it. Simple.

But the system cannot be bent to treat anyone differently, or we all are in jeopardy.

The right to fair and speedy trial, as well as due process are written in stone, but the definitions as to what those terms really mean are more adaptable than you would think. There are lines of cases that state that courts should generally act in a certain way in certain situations to satisfy the due process clause, but in extreme situations, they just have to do everything they reasonably can. If somebody speaks a very rare dialect, it can be impossible for the courts to find an interpreter. At this point, you have to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of society at large. We all concede he has some right to a fair trial, and if he has the ability to communicate with his lawyers, his trial will be more fair. On the other hand, society as a whole has rights. I am not going to argue that society has a right to keep a potentially dangerous person off the street (after all he is presumed innocent), but rather society has an interest in not creating a new defense (namely the "they do not have an interpreter that speaks my dialogue defense) and society has an interest in treating everybody fairly which includes not allowing people of certain national origins not to be automatically acquitted because no interpreters exist.

In this case, the right balance may be finding an interpreter that speaks a similar language that the accused can understand better than English or doing everything in English as this person presumably has to know some English or he could not function here.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by hotpinkurinalmint]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
shame on u.s justice system..... thrown out of court because they couldn't find an enterpreter...PATHETIC......... Just like the sentences handed out to convicted child predaters by a lot of judges?? Who's looking after the children?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Scalia and Thomas are throwbacks and morons. Scalia is a far right wing racist and denier of rights in virtually all decisions, and Thomas is an Uncle Tom who hates his won identity and wants more than anything to return to a simpler are where the bounds were well known and enforced.

the ONLY decision I agree with by thomas was when he was flabbergasted at the decision to make the use of medical cannabis legal in States that have passed laws allowing same; he sided with the States Rights side, and of course Scalia ALWAYS votes EVERY TIME for anything that has COP or SEARCH on it. Scalia is much like Mussolini, very much so. He is a crude and devilish lawyer with a chip on his shoulder and firmly in the pocket of the Repugs ( repugnant Republicans ).

Thomas and Scalia can destroy the constitution as easily as voting to stop an election recount ( see Bush victory) or in ways that destroy the rights we enjoy, such as stop and search laws, police dog laws, intrusions into privacy, etc. and they do so with relish.

Scalia wants to be dictator and Thomas wants to return to Alabama with a banjo on his knee to sing quaint songs to assuage his fellow blacks to stay silent and follow the rules despite the loss of rights, loss of jobs, loss of dignity, etc. he is a lackey of the Feds and desperate to maintain the status quo.

We do NOT have to go back to slavery times and times when the laws were in flux being decided, we can do fine now if the Supremes would act according to the Constitution and not rewriting the laws due to the lies and fearmongering of the Bush cabal.

America is almost gone now; if someone from the past could step into the present and see what the laws are, they would be sickened at what has been taken away from us. Phony wars on terror, phony wars on SOME drugs, phony politicians covering each others backs, it goes on and on.

until the people wake up and smell the dungheap we are making for the future, the descent into oblivion will continue, and real justice will continue to evade us.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Scalia and Thomas are throwbacks and morons. Scalia is a far right wing racist and denier of rights in virtually all decisions, and Thomas is an Uncle Tom who hates his won identity and wants more than anything to return to a simpler are where the bounds were well known and enforced.

the ONLY decision I agree with by thomas was when he was flabbergasted at the decision to make the use of medical cannabis legal in States that have passed laws allowing same; he sided with the States Rights side, and of course Scalia ALWAYS votes EVERY TIME for anything that has COP or SEARCH on it. Scalia is much like Mussolini, very much so. He is a crude and devilish lawyer with a chip on his shoulder and firmly in the pocket of the Repugs ( repugnant Republicans ).

Thomas and Scalia can destroy the constitution as easily as voting to stop an election recount ( see Bush victory) or in ways that destroy the rights we enjoy, such as stop and search laws, police dog laws, intrusions into privacy, etc. and they do so with relish.

Scalia wants to be dictator and Thomas wants to return to Alabama with a banjo on his knee to sing quaint songs to assuage his fellow blacks to stay silent and follow the rules despite the loss of rights, loss of jobs, loss of dignity, etc. he is a lackey of the Feds and desperate to maintain the status quo.

We do NOT have to go back to slavery times and times when the laws were in flux being decided, we can do fine now if the Supremes would act according to the Constitution and not rewriting the laws due to the lies and fearmongering of the Bush cabal.

America is almost gone now; if someone from the past could step into the present and see what the laws are, they would be sickened at what has been taken away from us. Phony wars on terror, phony wars on SOME drugs, phony politicians covering each others backs, it goes on and on.

until the people wake up and smell the dungheap we are making for the future, the descent into oblivion will continue, and real justice will continue to evade us.



I agree with your sentiments about Thomas, in that he is probably the least remarkable person ever to reach the Supreme court in living memory. While you might not always like Scalia, you have to concede that he is one of the most brilliant judges on the Supreme court today. Both of us also have to concede, that as much as we may disagree or dislike Thomas or Scalia, they have votes on the Supreme court and we do not.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
wow the only reason he was set free is b/c the court didnt want to take the time to find one
it is ovious he did it



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Based on what? You seen the evidence or something?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
meanwhile in other news, a few 13 year olds face 10 years in jail and 7 felony charges for smacking a girl on the butt in the school hallway. the girl participated too.

our justice system is so fubar.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
ok..i'm cought up.
i think this is all pretty silly.
imo, we need not go nay further in debating a new law...'english shall be the official language in a US court'.

seems fair enough for me.
speak vai? sure, you can come over all you want but if you get popped for 'allegedly' doing something, you're gonna have to face up to it in english.

we don't need people duping the system. i have lived here my entire life and consider myslef smart enough but i don't understand a lot of the legal talk of what goes on in court.
hell, i was busted for fireworks on the 4th and i didn't understand my 'punishment'...i had to ask the judge and this is in a minor case.
if i was on trial for molestation, no way i am going to get what is happening.
that is what the attorney is for
they tried to get people to interpret but apparently not too hard. he worked the system over AND got off on those fantastic little technicalities/loopholes that are ALL OVER the place within our justice system.
we don't need to get back to the friggin dark ages where we stone and torture people 5 minutes after being accused but i think the US has one of the most cushy systems in the world(if you are a criminal)....
you can manipulate the hell out of the us system from arrest to sentence.
just by saying little things like 'he didn't read me my rights' will cause a nice ripple in the process.
then of course you have the corruption starting at the arrest. by the time you get to the actual trial, it's friggin tainted anyway.

i think the whole system is a joke. dude should have sat in jail(just cause you are in jail awaiting trial does not mean you are guilty. it happens all the time) till they got a vai translator...judge should have lit a match under the proper people to get it done. hell, they could have had someone come in and teach him english. it could have been done....
man, this is the information age....i'm not buying any of that for a second.

found innocent? gets let out, sorry. probably will sue and win
guilty? then time served comes off his sentence, and then a month or so after, the boys in jail will end his sentence for him. problem solved.





top topics
 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join