posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by RobinB022
Thank you for disagreeing, I'm glad you bothered. I think you're right. I agree that:
logic dictates that if the LEO or his attorney felt as you describe there would be no need for a plea bargain. There was obviously enough fear
or doubt in this case for the LEO to not only consider, but to accept a deal. your own words are telling of just how much the officer had to lose by
accepting the deal as quoted below. At most his attorney must have felt that it was a slim chance of being believed by a jury.
there was a lot of fear on the officer's part. You never know what a jury is going to do, and the semen might have been enough for a conviction. If
he was convicted, he's a policeman in prison for years. That is not going to be a pleasant time at all. He may be able to survive to the end of his
sentence, but I'd hate to guarantee it. And, we know that sometimes juries convict innocent men. He's got a lot of incentive to avoid trial.
But there's also uncertainty on the part of the prosecutor. If the consent defense holds up, the cop walks free and smiling to the press. The
prosecutor looks like an idiot, public faith in his office falls, and he may have let a rapist go free. With this deal the prosecutor at least gets
I think you're also right that the same deal wouldn't have been offered to just anybody. The prosecutor knew that the testimony of a policeman is
going to carry some weight, so he'd have an easier time convicting a nobody.
Anyway, thanks for responding.