Karma baby...is a B!tch!!!

[rancher]

Judges should have a common- sense factor when on the bench. I have a friend. now labeled a child molester, should of been cleared when the girl told the judge she had made up the story because she was mad & it was in fact, not true.

 

[Mgarza_a]

Are you suggesting that Prosecutors should not engage in plea negotiations with Defendants (through their attorneys) because that is too much power for a person to "wield?" Should every defendant accused of a crime be tried by a jury even if they don't want to be? If so, prepare for your taxes to rise to hire more prosecutors, public defenders, judges, build more courtrooms, and expect to spend significantly more time on jury duty.

Prosecutors should engage in plea negotiations I'm not disputing that. My comment was directed at how those negotiations are employed. You can take 2 years deferred and be labeled a felon (even if your innocent) or take it to trial and face 10 years. While its true that beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard in a court of law, I think many defendants either lack the means for a well practiced attorney or frankly scared to take the chance of being convicted. Therefore it becomes easier for the judicial system to churn out convictions regardless of guilt.

I agreed that not all prosecutors are in practice for conviction rate, but lets not pretend that DA's get elected on their "fair" application of the laws either. My original point was that this gentleman should never have been caught in the situation in the first place. He was innocent yet they still convened a grand jury despite his pleas of innocence. How did it make it that far in the first place? There is simply not enough accountability when it comes to false accusations.

And yes Tin Star the accuser should have to pay restitution. My response was to Baron not the op. Thanks

 

[Baron Driver]

Prosecutors should engage in plea negotiations I'm not disputing that. My comment was directed at how those negotiations are employed. You can take 2 years deferred and be labeled a felon (even if your innocent) or take it to trial and face 10 years. While its true that beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard in a court of law, I think many defendants either lack the means for a well practiced attorney or frankly scared to take the chance of being convicted. Therefore it becomes easier for the judicial system to churn out convictions regardless of guilt.

I agreed that not all prosecutors are in practice for conviction rate, but lets not pretend that DA's get elected on their "fair" application of the laws either. My original point was that this gentleman should never have been caught in the situation in the first place. He was innocent yet they still convened a grand jury despite his pleas of innocence. How did it make it that far in the first place? There is simply not enough accountability when it comes to false accusations.

And yes Tin Star the accuser should have to pay restitution. My response was to Baron not the op. Thanks

I am not familiar enough with the facts of this case to say whether or not I think a grand jury should have been convened. Pleas of innocence by the accused generally do not carry much weight with me. Pleas of innocence coupled with either verifiable alibis or lack of evidence supporting guilt are another matter entirely. If there is sufficient evidence that she fabricated the story and made a false police report then she should be prosecuted criminally. Furthermore, if she falsely accused him then I'm happy that a jury found her civilly liable.

I will agree with you that the system is not perfect, but I believe it is the best in the world. Regarding plea negotiations, how do you think they could be more fairly employed?