daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) (05/18/85)
The Dotson Case_________________________________________________________________
I'm surprised there hasn't been any talk about the Dotson case in this
newsgroup. Well I've got plenty to say!
I'm outraged by the overwhelming media attention on this case. One
woman claims she lied about being raped, and we see it on the front pages now
for over a month! The Associated Press, in its neverending search for news that
supports the _status_quo_ (read: white patriarchy), diligently roots out ob-
scure cases of alleged falsely-accused rape from various nooks and crannies to
"show" us that the Dotson case isn't an "isolated incident."
Somewhere in all the brouhaha, the media has forgotten to mention a few
very important facts:
o Less than 1% of rape accusations turn out to be false.
This is by far the lowest rate of false accusation for
any crime.
o The conviction rate for rape is about 2%. This is by
far the lowest rate of conviction for any crime.
What should we do about it? If everyone who subscribed to net.women would write
to their local papers and complain about the distorted view of rape that is pre-
sented in the converage of this case, we could make a difference. How about it?
Also, does anybody know where to write to complain to Associated Press?
<_Jym_>
:::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer
::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts
::' :: `::
:: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
:: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
::..:' :: `:..::
::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not
:::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/20/85)
In article <2220@decwrl.UUCP> daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) writes: > o The conviction rate for rape is about 2%. This is by > far the lowest rate of conviction for any crime. > I think the problem here lies in proving rape. More than almost any other crime, the proof of rape depends on a person's state of mind. Furthermore, unlike any other crime I can think of, it depends on the state of the _victim's_ mind. If you point a gun at someone and demand they give you money, that's armed robbery. Period. States of mind don't enter into the case, only the actions matter. Rape involves actions which may or may not be criminal depending on circumstances. Some people _like_ to be beaten up and treated roughly. (I know of at least two millionaires who made their money in the "whips and chains" market). Others have been accused of rape because a woman said "No" once or twice or was drunk before going to bed with them. The entire question rests on the attitude of the victim _at the time_. It is extremely difficult to prove state of mind in court, and this is the point that many rape defense cases are built on. Add to this that our legal system requires "proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt" for conviction and it becomes more apparent why the percentage of rape convictions is so low. Finally, before I get flamed to a cinder, I'd like to state that I consider rape to be a terrible crime of violence and strongly favor the death penalty for habitual offenders (life imprisonment for 1st offense). The forgoing are merely my thoughts on why so few rapists are convicted at all. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/21/85)
> The Dotson Case_____________________________________________________________ > > I'm outraged by the overwhelming media attention on this case. One > woman claims she lied about being raped, and we see it on the front pages now > for over a month! The Associated Press, in its neverending search for news that > supports the _status_quo_ (read: white patriarchy), diligently roots out ob- > scure cases of alleged falsely-accused rape from various nooks and crannies to > "show" us that the Dotson case isn't an "isolated incident." > What should we do about it? If everyone who subscribed to net.women would write > to their local papers and complain about the distorted view of rape that is pre- > sented in the converage of this case, we could make a difference. How about it? I thought that Newsweek had a very well thought-out, unbiased, undistorted article (this was last week's issue, I believe; it was the cover story). They made exactly Jym's point: that many people were using this isolated incident as an example (to show that women lie about rape) and that rape is one of the most underreported and underconvicted crimes. marie desjardins
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/21/85)
>>>>>> What should we do about it? If everyone who subscribed to net.women would write to their local papers and complain about the distorted view of rape that is pre- sented in the converage of this case, we could make a difference. How about it? > Also, does anybody know where to write to complain to Associated Press? >>>>>> Well, I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of newspapers is to make money, and one easy way to do that is to print and play up sensational (and unusual (sic)) stories. That is undoubtedly the major reason the Dotson case has gotten so much publicity. Personally, the story did not make me think that there might be a lot of false rape accusations, primarily because so much *publicity* was given to the fact that the authorities still consider that Dotson was *guilty* as can be. There was no pardon; it was just felt that, whatever the motivation of the victim may have been, she obviously didn't want him in jail any more. (An ironic commentary to those who would let the victim decide what the punishment should be!) Is there a term in abnormal psychology for "overanxiousness to be considered politically correct" ? There should be. Jeff Winslow
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/21/85)
> > o The conviction rate for rape is about 2%. This is by > > far the lowest rate of conviction for any crime. > > > > I think the problem here lies in proving rape. More than almost any other > crime, the proof of rape depends on a person's state of mind. Furthermore, > unlike any other crime I can think of, it depends on the state of the > _victim's_ mind. > > If you point a gun at someone and demand they give you money, that's armed > robbery. Period. States of mind don't enter into the case, only the > actions matter. > If you point a gun at someone and demand that they "submit", that's armed rape. If you force someone some other way, it is unarmed rape, but still rape, just like unarmed theft is still theft. If you want to make a valid comparison, you should compare armed rape with armed robbery, and unarmed rape with unarmed robbery. If there are no weapons involved, theft could also depend in the state of the victim's mind. "Why Officer, when I asked him to, he just handed over his whole paycheck to me. I had no idea he didn't really want to!" -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/22/85)
> The Dotson Case_________________________________________________________________ > > I'm surprised there hasn't been any talk about the Dotson case in this > newsgroup. Well I've got plenty to say! > > I'm outraged by the overwhelming media attention on this case. One > woman claims she lied about being raped, and we see it on the front pages now > for over a month! The Associated Press, in its neverending search for news that > supports the _status_quo_ (read: white patriarchy), diligently roots out ob- > scure cases of alleged falsely-accused rape from various nooks and crannies to > "show" us that the Dotson case isn't an "isolated incident." I recall that at about the same time as the Dotson case, there was another women back East who recanted her testimony against the accused in a rape case. The news media hasn't followed up on that one, perhaps because there was some question about the truthfulness of the recantation. The Dotson case is in the media so much because a clear injustice has been done in delaying the accused's release from prison. If the crime alleged, was murder, and then the only witness claimed her testimony was made up, and the "justice" system kept Gary Dotson in prison anyway, wouldn't you be upset if the news media *didn't* make it a headline event? > Somewhere in all the brouhaha, the media has forgotten to mention a few > very important facts: > > o Less than 1% of rape accusations turn out to be false. > This is by far the lowest rate of false accusation for > any crime. > Where does this statistic come from? Statistics on net.women have lately been thrown around with abandon; some of those statistics have been found to be incorrect. > o The conviction rate for rape is about 2%. This is by > far the lowest rate of conviction for any crime. > Is the conviction rate 2% of those charged? Is it 2% of all crimes? If you mean 2% of all rapes result in a conviction, that is lower than all crimes, but not dramatically so. Also, if you means 2% of rapes result in a conviction, there is characteristic of rape that you have overlooked: rapists usually commit *hundreds* of rapes during their "career"; they are frequently convicted on just a few of those rapes, because evidence is inadequate on the others, or because no connection is made to other rapes committed by the same rapist.
jcjeff@ihlpg.UUCP (Richard Jeffreys) (05/23/85)
> Finally, before I get flamed to a cinder, I'd like to state that I consider > rape to be a terrible crime of violence and strongly favor the death > penalty for habitual offenders (life imprisonment for 1st offense). The > forgoing are merely my thoughts on why so few rapists are convicted at all. > The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) > {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe How many times would a person have to be convicted of rape for it to be classeed as habitual ? Two, Three, Four or more times ?? Just committing rape once is bad enough. If the offender was in prison for life for a first offense, and life ment LIFE, it would be rather unlikley that the offender would have the chance to become an *habitual* offender. Unfortunately life imprisonment hardly ever is LIFE imprisonment. -- [ Hey when I get it right; will you tell me please; I wanna know - Joan Armatrading ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) || || employed by North American Philips Corporation || || @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || General disclaimer about anything and everything that I may have typed || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) (05/23/85)
> Finally, before I get flamed to a cinder, I'd like to state that I consider > rape to be a terrible crime of violence and strongly favor the death > penalty for habitual offenders (life imprisonment for 1st offense). The > forgoing are merely my thoughts on why so few rapists are convicted at all. > The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) > {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe >How many times would a person have to be convicted of rape for it to be >classeed as habitual ? Two, Three, Four or more times ?? >Just committing rape once is bad enough. >If the offender was in prison for life for a first offense, and life ment >LIFE, it would be rather unlikley that the offender would have the chance >to become an *habitual* offender. > From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) || These two comments come from two men. Interestingly enough, I saw Susan Brownmiller, who wrote "Against Our Will" on a news program. They asked her how long someone should you to jail for rape. She said to be in line with other crimes, 6 to 8 years for a first offense. I assume this number might change if you added assault with a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder. She didn't say what repeat offenders should get. I would guess the numbers would go up pretty quickly for repeat offenders. Part of the problem is that repeat offenders are let out again and again. You would hope that maybe some convicted rapists change. For those who won't or can't, lock them up far away from women, for a long time. (As a footnote on Susan Brownmiller, she has a new book out called "Femininity". Has anyone read it out there? It looks interesting.) Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (05/23/85)
I have a question about this case, what is/should happen to the woman who lied? Maybe it has already happened, I'm not a big news fan. Should she be sentenced to jail on a perjury charge? Should she be forced to serve as much time as the man she falsly accused? Or should she have her "hand slapped"? My personal opinion is that she deserves some punishment - on a par with what she caused to happen to the man. Otherwise the fact that she lied will be used against the prosecution in future rape cases, even though this is surely a very isolated incident. Peter B
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/24/85)
Yeah, we all want murderers, rapists, armed robbers, pickpockets, etc. locked up for life. (Pardon me, just indulging in the spirit of exaggeration that seems to be the vogue in net.women these days.) Somebody even wanted (very understandably, under the circumstances) to lock up somebody for a long time for saying rude things to her. Well, people, put your money where your mouth is. It costs a hell of a lot of money to do all that. Taxes and bond issues for new prisons get voted down regularly (at least in this part of the country). What's wrong with this picture? the (verbally) active Jeff Winslow
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (05/25/85)
In article <2220@decwrl.UUCP> daemon@decwrl.UUCP (Jim Dyer) writes: >The Dotson Case___________________________________________________________ [...] > I'm outraged by the overwhelming media attention on this case. One >woman claims she lied about being raped, and we see it on the front pages now >for over a month! The Associated Press, in its neverending search for news >that supports the _status_quo_ (read: white patriarchy I'm a fool not to keep my opinions to myself, but, GRRR... The Dotson case was often on p. 1 of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, my local paper. Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced, but it definitely was a newsworthy case. What outrages ME is that IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON. The testimony was apparently the only real evidence against him, and when it was recanted -- Dotson should have been released immediately. > Somewhere in all the brouhaha, the media has forgotten to mention a few >very important facts: > o Less than 1% of rape accusations turn out to be false. > This is by far the lowest rate of false accusation for > any crime. Yes, I did notice the absence of mention of such facts. But then, I didn't follow the stories too closely; I may have missed such mention. "Turn up those flames -- I hate cold weather!" --the missing flink Formerly wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (05/27/85)
> I'm a fool not to keep my opinions to myself, but, GRRR... > > The Dotson case was often on p. 1 of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, my local > paper. Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced, but it definitely > was a newsworthy case. What outrages ME is that IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR > THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON. The testimony was apparently the only real > evidence against him, and when it was recanted -- Dotson should have been > released immediately. There was corroborating physical evidence that she had been raped. She had been beaten badly, and I understand that semen samples taken from her matched Dotson's. > --the missing flink > Formerly wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (05/27/85)
> I have a question about this case, what is/should happen to the > woman who lied? Maybe it has already happened, I'm not a big news fan. > > Should she be sentenced to jail on a perjury charge? Should she be forced > to serve as much time as the man she falsly accused? Or should she have her > "hand slapped"? > > My personal opinion is that she deserves some punishment - on a par with > what she caused to happen to the man. Otherwise the fact that she lied will > be used against the prosecution in future rape cases, even though this is > surely a very isolated incident. > > Peter B I don't know what to think about this case. The prosecutors, the police, and the governor all examined the evidence, and all say that they still believe Dotson is guilty. The governor released Dotson because the woman involved (why can't I remember her name?) doesn't want him in jail any more. It's possible that the government just doesn't want to admit a mistake. It's also possible that the woman really was raped, and now has some unspoken reason for denying it. The woman has made two contradictory statements under oath: that Dotson did rape her, and that he didn't (at least, I think she made the latter statement under oath). If he really did rape her, I don't think she should be punished for her second statement, because she has already been through a hell of a lot, and doesn't deserve more, and her statement didn't cause a lot of damage. If he didn't rape her, then she should be punished for her first statement. It is not clear (to me, at least) which of these cases is the real one. Until we know for certain what happened, I think it's better to do nothing. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/28/85)
In article <1030@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: >Should she be sentenced to jail on a perjury charge? Should she be forced >to serve as much time as the man she falsly accused? Or should she have her >"hand slapped"? I expect the statute of limitations has long since run out on her actions, so she probably can't be prosecuted for them at all. Perhaps that's why she waited so long to come forward? -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (05/29/85)
In article <6078@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul Torek) writes: > >The Dotson case was often on p. 1 of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, my local >paper. Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced, but it definitely >was a newsworthy case. What outrages ME is that IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR >THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON. The testimony was apparently the only real >evidence against him, and when it was recanted -- Dotson should have been >released immediately. I completely agree with this statement, if indeed what I've heard about the case was accurately presented. Seems to me the problem was an inflexible judge who couldn't admit to a mistake. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (05/29/85)
No matter how you cut it, she lied under oath. It does not matter *which*
of her testimonies was a lie; simple logic has it that *one* of her testimonies
was a *lie*, a *crime*. I think the whole thing looks more like a Monty Python
skit than a trial, with Gov. Thompson a poor excuse for John Cleese.
Cheryl Stewart
"You say he nailed your wife's head to a coffee table...?"
"Well, yes...at first. He was a cruel man...but fair."mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/30/85)
> > I'm a fool not to keep my opinions to myself, but, GRRR... > > The Dotson case was often on p. 1 of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, > my local paper. Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced, > but it definitely was a newsworthy case. What outrages ME is that > IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON. The testimony > was apparently the only real evidence against him, and when it was > recanted -- Dotson should have been released immediately. > Ah well, you can always count on USENET.. The woman's testimony was only part of the case. There was overwhelming physical and circumstantial evidence to support her original testimony. Officials close to the case have repeatedly stated their belief that she was raped. The drawing put together by police artists looks remarkably like Dotson at the time of the crime, and his testimony as to his activities at the time is diffuse and conflicts with that of his friends that he claims were with him at the time. The woman's appearance-- her mental condition as described by both her parents and the police, the semen stains on her underwear, the scratches that she now claims were self-inflicted, all point to the conclusion that she was raped. The testimony of her boyfriend seems to torpedo her current story that she made up the rape because she feared she was pregnant by him. Now, her story this time around could be true. The police and her parents could be wrong. Her boyfriend could be lying. She could have scratched herself convincingly and just be good at acting. The conflicts between Dotson's testimony and that of his friends could just be the erosion of time since the crime (although the testimony conflicted when the case was tried the first time round, too). But for me there are just too many coincidences-- I'll take the simplest explanation. The trouble is, the pieces just don't fit. Why does all the circumstantial and physical evidence point to a rape when she says none ever happened? Why pardon someone you feel is guilty? If no rape ever took place, why wait so long to say so? If a rape actually took place, why does the woman suddenly recant her testimony? Dotson's family is certainly in no position to put pressure on her, or if it is, why not call in the police? It just doesn't add up. And that's why I get a bit annoyed when people start talking about Dotson being innocent, because, at least to me, it is not at all certain that he is. As far as the case itself is concerned, I find it a puzzlebox all the way round, and anyway, it's just one case. Rape is a bigger problem in this country than just one case; we shouldn't let all the hoopla about one isolated case distract us, though we should try to learn as much as we can from every chance we are presented with. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (05/30/85)
>From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) >Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA >Message-ID: <439@rtech.UUCP> > >> The Dotson case was often on p. 1 of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, my local >> paper. Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced, but it definitely >> was a newsworthy case. What outrages ME is that IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR >> THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON. The testimony was apparently the only real >> evidence against him, and when it was recanted -- Dotson should have been >> released immediately. > >There was corroborating physical evidence that she had been raped. She had >been beaten badly, and I understand that semen samples taken from her matched >Dotson's. This brings up a question I have been wondering about since this whole thing started: Let's say Dotson really did rape her. (No flames please, this is an academic discussion.) Why then would his victim then recant her testimony and get him released? The discussions about rape in this newsgroup indicate that it is an extremely damaging experience for the victim. Here, however, we potentially have the case of a woman who was raped and is now sorry she sent the rapist to jail. Something don't jive. -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 222-6600 x366 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Silly Quote: I never wanted to be a barber. I wanted to be... a LUMBERJACK!
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/30/85)
Peter Barbee writes: >I have a question about this case, what is/should happen to the >woman who lied?... >My personal opinion is that she deserves some punishment - on a par with >what she caused to happen to the man. > I have seen an editorial arguing that whats-his-name actually IS guiltly, and Dotson is lying now. Here's a guy, locked up for six years, for a crime he didn't commit. Is he mad at her? Does he sue her? Wouldn't you be kind of ticked off a little, at least? Now suppose he is guilty, she recants her story (for whatever reason). Now you are happy. You are not mad at her. You don't sue her since she might change her story again. Sound more familiar? She has not been convicted (or even charged, as far as I know) of perjury. Until she is convicted, talking of punishment is jumping the gun. He could press charges. Why doesn't he? Merlyn Leroy Don't ask me, I wasn't there
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (05/31/85)
> Let's say Dotson really did rape her. (No flames please, this is an >
academic discussion.) Why then would his victim then recant her
testimony > and get him released?
Perhaps she (now) believes that a woman is at fault for getting raped.
I'm quite serious; that mentality is not confined to men. Based on the
physical evidence in the case (the semen stains, the pubic hairs,
etc.), I'm inclined to think she did have intercourse with *someone*
other than her boyfriend that night -- with whom, and under what
circumstances (consensual sex, forcible rape, what Germaine Greer calls
"petty rape") remain unclear.
Let me give a possible scenario. Suppose she met Dotson and they went
out on a date. At some point, she said "no" to his advances, whereupon
he raped her ("of course she didn't really mean it..."). She quite
properly complained to the police, date rape being the evil that it
is. But suppose that over the intervening years, she has convinced
herself that *she* was at fault for leading him on?
I have a few other ideas as well, but they're really irrelevant to the
larger issue of rape and society. This case is unique and quite
difficult; the adage that hard cases make bad law quite definitely
applies.sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/31/85)
> >There was corroborating physical evidence that she had been raped. She had > >been beaten badly, and I understand that semen samples taken from her matched > >Dotson's. > > This brings up a question I have been wondering about since this whole > thing started: > > Let's say Dotson really did rape her. (No flames please, this is an > academic discussion.) Why then would his victim then recant her testimony > and get him released? > > The discussions about rape in this newsgroup indicate that it is an > extremely damaging experience for the victim. Here, however, we potentially > have the case of a woman who was raped and is now sorry she sent the rapist > to jail. > > Something don't jive. > > Name: John Ruschmeyer The first time I heard of this case, it was mentioned that Dotson and his victim was somehow romantically involved. I haven't heard anything more on that matter since. I don't know if that fact (if it is a fact) could somehow help understand this whole business or not. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/01/85)
In article <444@sftri.UUCP> mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) writes: >> my local paper. Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced, >> but it definitely was a newsworthy case. What outrages ME is that >> IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON. The testimony >[...] >And that's why I get a bit annoyed when people start talking about >Dotson being innocent, because, at least to me, it is not at all certain >that he is. As far as the case itself is concerned, I find it a It isn't certain that he is, but I think it explains things better than the hypothesis that he's guilty. Anyway, the new testimony definitely opens plenty of doubt, and I think you're forgetting something here: innocent until proven guilty. I stand by my main point: the case was newsworthy because Dotson should have been released immediately, but the case dragged on. --Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (06/03/85)
> In article <444@sftri.UUCP> mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) writes: > >> my local paper. Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced, > >> but it definitely was a newsworthy case. What outrages ME is that > >> IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON. The testimony > >[...] > >And that's why I get a bit annoyed when people start talking about > >Dotson being innocent, because, at least to me, it is not at all certain > >that he is. As far as the case itself is concerned, I find it a > > It isn't certain that he is, but I think it explains things better > than the hypothesis that he's guilty. Anyway, the new testimony > definitely opens plenty of doubt, and I think you're forgetting > something here: innocent until proven guilty. I stand by > my main point: the case was newsworthy because Dotson should > have been released immediately, but the case dragged on. > > --Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink My point is that he was already convicted. If the original testimony of the woman was a lie, why wasn't the conviction overturned? In that case, it would have been wrong to keep Dotson locked up. Since he was already convicted, he should remain in jail until it can be established what effect the new testimony has (assuming that the new testimony is true.) None of that was really done in this case; this whole new mess was handled abominably. You're right, there may be room for doubt with the new evidence, but what probably should have been done in that case would be to convene a new trial, with Dotson perhaps released on bail. In any case, I stand by my point: Dotson had already been convicted-- he should have remained in jail until the effects of the new testimony were assessed. You don't release someone just because new testimony is going to be forthcoming, even when it appears that testimony might significantly affect the case (it may not; the conviction may have been made based on some other evidence. He was properly convicted; he should have been properly treated when all this came up. Dotson is now out as a convicted felon-- a retrial might have gotten him not only freedom, but a clean record. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/04/85)
In article <5359@tekecs.UUCP> jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >Yeah, we all want murderers, rapists, armed robbers, pickpockets, etc. >locked up for life. (Pardon me, just indulging in the spirit of >exaggeration that seems to be the vogue in net.women these days.) > >Well, people, put your money where your mouth is. It costs a hell of a lot >of money to do all that. Taxes and bond issues for new prisons get voted >down regularly (at least in this part of the country). What's wrong with >this picture? > Jeff Winslow I don't recall EVER having a voice in how my tax dollars are spent by the legal and correctional system(s). It does NOT matter how you vote, or who you vote for -- these organizations do just what they want, by acts such as Federal judges unilaterally ordering the expenditures of government funds, regardless of the wishes of those who provide those funds. No, I don't want the people you mentioned "locked up for life"; this is an asinine waste of funds and resources. I want them exterminated. I am willing to take the risk that I, myself, will be wrongly arrested and executed for a crime I did not commit, in return for swift and economic elimination of individuals who choose to behave in the manner mentioned. I think the odds are worth it. ("Economic" would mean that we fix the existing legal system so that it costs no more in trial and appeal expenses to execute a convicted criminal than it did in, say, 1935. Right now, it probably costs MORE to execute someone than to put them up for life in a luxury hotel suite!) I don't expect this to happen without a severe (read "violent") change of government. Given that it is unlikely that those that should be exterminated will be, it IS possible to change the existing prison system to BOTH keep larger numbers of subhuman vermin off the streets AND save the expenses of housing and guarding them. What we now do in prisons is completely idiotic. They are schools for crime, corrupting societies of the physically strong or criminally powerful dominating the weaker, not only reinforcing the criminal frame of mind and attitudes, but also dragging in those that are in contact with them (corruption of guards & wardens, etc.). We even do such abysmally stupid things as permit prisoners to engage in body-building and exercising to keep them physically strong, so they can use that very strength to attack us after they get out!!!!! Therefore, the solution is to change the prison system from the current mockery of efforts at "rehabilitation" (what for? we already have more people on the outside needing employment than there are jobs!) to an open and honest system of "warehousing bodies". When one goes into prison, one should get a bunk space in many-tiered bunks in vast wards, where one is put into drug-induced unconsciousness for the entire period of the sentence. Don't argue that this requires hospital-quality care and attention, and consequent high cost -- if this was done on a mass scale, there would be robotic intravenous-feeding and brain-state monitoring, along with details such as vibrating or moving support surfaces to prevent bedsores. It could be done with minimal human intervention and VERY economically. (Those recently-begun private-enterprise prison systems might be ideally suited to this.) Will it happen? Of course not! It eliminates practically all the current opportunities for graft and corruption that permeate the correctional system, so the "powers-that-be" will never let come to pass. There will also be the idiots who will howl about "rights", neglecting that convicted criminals have ceased to be definable as human beings. (You've seen those netter's signature lines that say something like, "First, we kill all the lawyers"? THAT is that "violent" governmental change I mentioned above. As long as lawyers are our legislators, and comprise so much of the power structure, AND lawyers live off the existing legal and correctional system, we will be forced to continue to endure the mess we are in...) (I'd say something humorous here to lighten this misery, but I can't bring myself to... :-(, definitely...)
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/05/85)
In article <174@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > I recall that at about the same time as the Dotson case, there was another > women back East who recanted her testimony against the accused in a rape case. > The news media hasn't followed up on that one, perhaps because there was > some question about the truthfulness of the recantation. Er, um, have I totally lost my ability to read newspapers & listen to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, or isn't the reason that there was delay in releasing Dotson that *everyone* involved in the Dotson case from the governor on down considered the recantation false? The governor ultimately commuted the man's sentence because the massive publicity given the case made it likely that some number of people *would* think he, the governor had been unfair & because Dotson had served more than the average amount of time that convicted rapists served. (That's only six years, folks.) The governor made it very clear when he DID not consider Dotson innocent & did not believe Ms. Webb's current story. And has it occurred to no one that it may be easier for Ms. Webb to recant & pretend that the whole rape never took place than to have to recall that such a heinious thing happened to her? C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/07/85)
In article <448@ttidcc.UUCP>, hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: > In article <1030@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: > >Should she be sentenced to jail on a perjury charge? Should she be forced > >to serve as much time as the man she falsly accused? Or should she have her > >"hand slapped"? > > I expect the statute of limitations has long since run out on her actions, > so she probably can't be prosecuted for them at all. Perhaps that's why > she waited so long to come forward? The statute of limitations for felony as serious as perjury is usually 7 years. The news said Dotson was only in for six. The reason Webb hasn't been prosecuted for perjury committed at Dotson's trial is that it is the opinion of the state of Illinois (as expressed by its governor & top law enforcement officials) that she didn't commit perjury THEN, she's committing it NOW. Since they've said that in public, they'd be hard pressed to turn around & prosecute her for it, wouldn't they? As to why they don't prosecute her for her current testimony, I don't know. Maybe they decided that anyone sick enough to make up a story like hers (which hurts primarily herself) deserves compassion. Would you feel that justice had been served if she were prosecuted for perjury now? C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)