Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Cad_sl said:

Careful, don't backpedal so fast you go back in fucking time.

You don't understand the significance of what I'm showing you; it's ok, you're just a teacher, it's expected that you're functionally retarded. You're also just trolling for the lulz so I further expect you to be retarded. So far, you aren't disappointing on either count!

In between responding to you today and shopping for parts for my porsche I've sat at a mediation where we settled a case getting 8 million dollars for our client. I'm done with you and your retardation for today, I'm going to go home and figure out how much my investment account is going to balloon by due to this contingency fee. Toodles!

Click to expand...

So... you give up. I don't blame you. You tried your best.

Edit: You quit because you found out those guys didn't go to jail, didn't you? Being a pretend lawyer is hard.

lendarios_sl said:

Question, what are the conditions for the case? I don't want to go and find one and then have the goal post shifted. Be very specific.

Here is oneInnocence Blog: Chicago Man's Rape Conviction Overturned After 30 Years

Click to expand...

Cad claimed the burden of evidence needed to be set higher for "too drunk to consent" rape cases (after saying that the bar was already set exceptionally high, mind you). He said this because he believes women who accuse men of rape after a night of "buyers remorse" are given too much benefit of the doubt, and that a woman who gets drunk and regrets having sex can easily accuse the guy of rape and possibly ruin his life. He claims to have witnessed at least one such case. He says "rape shield" laws prevent the defense from questioning the character of the accuser, and that this is somehow unfair, without showing a case where an unfair verdict was reached due to "rape shield" laws. He thinks current US rape law is too lax on the victim and too hard on the accused, and hefeelsthis could lead to innocent men being found guilty.

I'm just asking for a case that would prove this. Word the criteria however the fuck you want, I don't care. If you can show me that current US rape law (especially pertaining to "too drunk to consent", which if anybody is paying attention formed the entire framework for this conversation) leads to innocent men being found guilty because the jury takes the victim's word over his, then Cad's claims will have some merit. Otherwise, it's just feels.

I'm not playing mind games here or trying to trick anybody. Cad claims current rape law is unsatisfactory. I asked him to prove it, he gave me several examples that did absolutely nothing to show flaws in current rape laws and then blamed me for "shifting goal posts". It's lazy, it's dishonest, and it's the last fucking thing a real lawyer would do.

Your case, Lendarios, has fuck all to do with any of this, in case you were wondering. I'm glad you stopped trying to argue with me about "too drunk to consent" law, though. Good on you.

lendarios_sl said:

Darrell Williams - National Registry of Exonerations


Black man fingers white woman. Only evidence was their drunken word, guys gets sentenced. Later conviction is overturned.

Headshot. Now move those post away sir.

Click to expand...

You know what? That's actually damn near exactly what I was asking for. You found a rape case where the accused was convicted solely on the word of the victims. On top of that, the victims' mental health was not brought up at trial, even though it may have affected their reliability (making a point against rape shield laws).
The system ultimately worked in the end since the conviction got overturned (although apparently it's because the jury broke the rules and visited the scene of the crime), but Williams did spend 3 months in jail.

Nicely done, Lendarios. Have you considered becoming a pretend lawyer? You're already a better one than Cad.

lendarios_sl said:

BTW, if a conviction is overturned, is not an example of the system working. It is an example of the system failing, when an innocent man, or a man who you failed to give a fair change at trial, gets sentenced. The purpose of the system is not to overturn convictions, but to sent criminals to jail, not innocent people.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Now, I would still argue that cases like this are not indicative of any need for changes in rape law. All we need is to actually enforce the law the way it's written. Absent any other evidence, somebody's word is not enough to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't know if racism was a factor behind that case's verdict, but if they went by the book there's no way Williams would have been found guilty.

Cad_sl said:

And what I'm telling you, which I started out telling you, is many cases (not just rape cases) go like this. How many trials have you watched/conducted?

I watched a guy get convicted of indecent exposure on no evidence other than the police officer who arrested him, said he had his cock out when he walked by. No other witnesses, no other evidence. The cop was at a public park to "police gay activity" according to his own testimony. The guy he arrested was flamingly gay, and testified in his own defense that he did not have his cock out at any time. Directly contradictory testimony, and no physical evidence whatsoever. Since the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", no way he should have been convicted right? I think the jury deliberated like 30 minutes and came back guilty. Guy is a registered sex offender now.

This kind of shit happens all the time. You say "Absent any other evidence, somebody's word is not enough to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt"" - I agree. But it happens. Prosecutors do everything they can do lower the burden of proof, misstating it over and over. The burden of proof is accurately read out in the jury instructions, but it isn't explained. And the prosecutor and defense lawyers will give two different versions of what they think it means, so often the jurors just do what they think is right.

Click to expand...

Right. So the problem is with the jury system as a whole, not with rape law. Raising the burden of proof in "too drunk to consent" rape cases, which you advocated yesterday, would do nothing to fix the problem of people being found guilty with no evidence at all.

I'm sorry to hear about your conviction, by the way. Are you not allowed back at that park now?

Cad_sl said:

Kinda, but rape is one of those crimes where there often is no real physical evidence, so its one where the testimony is all you're going to get. So this credibility of testimony issue is more applicable to rape than many other crimes. Which isn't to say it isn't an issue in all trials.

If I had my way I'd have the judge really explain the burden of proof, the proper way, with examples. I'd then bar the lawyers from discussing it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Although as we've seen, judges fuck up plenty too.

Cad_sl said:

I didn't say this, I said rape in general, for the reasons above. Yet another strawman.

Click to expand...

OK, then raise the standard of evidence to what? Rape that doesn't fall into the "too drunk to consent" category is generally far easier to prove or disprove since it is more likely there will be physical evidence. The two false rape accusation cases you brought out yesterday (you know, the two examples on the bottom of Wikipedia's "false accusation of rape" page) both ended in the accused being found not guilty because there simply wasn't enough physical evidence to back up the accusations. The standard of evidence worked just fine in those cases. How would raising the standard of evidence have helped Darrell Williams, where there was already literally no proof?

Cad_sl said:

Ironically, I'd probably do exactly as you said, and require nothing but witness testimony to be corroborated by physical proof or other witnesses. I wouldn't let a single witness convict someone of a crime absent physical proof that corroborates the testimony. I don't see why we'd have to constrain it to rape; rape is just the topic here.

Click to expand...

So, no change in law or evidence standard needed, we simply need to enforce the standard by the book (in that "beyond a reasonable doubt" can not be established by one person's testimony). We're on the same page now.

khalid_sl said:

When discussing the death penalty with people, if I bring up the number of exonerated people who were on death row, they tend to say shit like "Well, we should only allow the death penalty in cases where we are SURE, like when we have direct eyewitness testimony". Uggh, that people find eyewitness testimony as somehow the perfect evidence of guilt makes me sad. I almost think that there should be a jury instruction on the matter, it is such a common myth that it is the best evidence.

Click to expand...

Memory itelf is incredibly unreliable and extremely subject to outside influences. Lots of studies have shown ways to manipulate people into believing they experienced something that they haven't actually experienced, and that's besides how memories naturally alter over even short periods of time. It's ridiculous that we allow such important decisions about people's lives to be based on such fickle and unreliable "evidence".