robert@weitek.UUCP (09/22/86)
In article <3256@watmath.UUCP> credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) writes: >>[The discussion revolves around the withdrawl of permission for sex at the >>last possible moment] >> >>If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory death penalty, would you >>send the guy to the electric chair? > >The impossibility of giving a sensible and just answer to a question >like that is one of the most powerful arguments against the death penalty. The impossibility of giving a sensible and just answer to a question like that is one reason why we have a jury system -- if everything's blown too far out of proportion, the members of the jury can just say "He's not THAT guilty", and deliver a verdict of "not guilty" to prevent the harsh penalty from being enforced. But be that as it may, I shouldn't have pushed people's "capital punishment" buttons, as that was not my point. I'll try again: If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory penalty of (pick one): twenty years in prison, five years in solitary, parole with Ray Frank as parole officer, would you still deliver a "guilty" verdict? What if the penalty was $500 and a week in jail? -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {pyramid,turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert Disclaimer: It's not my fault!
eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) (09/24/86)
>In article <946@tekigm2.UUCP> jimb@tekigm2.UUCP (Jim Boland) writes: > >[The discussion revolves around the withdrawl of permission for sex at the >last possible moment] > >>If permission is withdrawn, regardless of when, it becomes and issue of >>one forcing himself on the other. In my book, that is rape. Sure he may >>be excited and feel the need to release. That is his problem. If she says >>no, and seriously means it, That should end it. > >Now for the "turn black and white morality into shades of gray" question: > >If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory death penalty, would you >send the guy to the electric chair? >-- > >Robert Plamondon In the last 5-10 years they have lowered they mandatory sentence for rape in several states because they (legistators) beleived that they were not able to get convictions because the juries thought that the mandatory sentence was too severe and therefore weren't convicting criminals that they thought were probably guilty. I have heard of a similar problem getting convictions in Boston for drunk driving for similar reasons. (the above is from newspaper articles I read at the time.) -Beth
amq@caip.RUTGERS.EDU (Amqueue) (09/24/86)
In article <492@weitek.UUCP> robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory penalty of (pick one): > twenty years in prison, > five years in solitary, > parole with Ray Frank as parole officer, > >would you still deliver a "guilty" verdict? all this is assuming that the jury has already decided the person is guilty and is trying to further determine what the punishment should be... I dont consider parole viable, since I think that ray frank would force the guy to jump parole immediately, and so be out again raping. I would make sure he went to jail for a while... at least long enough for there to be a possibility for the female to have gotten over the effects/lived them down. I guess the answer is yes, tho I am coming to the conclusion that either the question is poorly formed or I am too asleep to parse it... >What if the penalty was $500 and a week in jail? I would personally kill the person... that is of the nature of a slap on the wrist. If that was all that would be done I would suggest he get tried for whatever assault he did and get jailed for that!!! bloody useless penalties... > Robert Plamondon /amq
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (09/24/86)
In article <2154@mtgzz.UUCP> eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: >>If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory death penalty, would you >>send the guy to the electric chair? > >In the last 5-10 years they have lowered they mandatory sentence for >rape in several states because they (legistators) beleived that they >were not able to get convictions because the juries thought that the >mandatory sentence was too severe and therefore weren't convicting >criminals that they thought were probably guilty. > People who are "probably guilty" are SUPPOSED to be acquitted. That's how the court system works in the United States, Canada, and a number of other moderately civilized countries. No one can be punished for an alleged crime unless found to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- which is a lot more stringent than "probably". This is not merely a quibble about words, because there does seem to be a tendency -- I won't say that feminists are MORE fond of it than others, but they're sure no less so -- to brand people guilty, even in a legal sense, if it seems PROBABLE, but by no means certain, that they did something bad.
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/26/86)
In article <3436@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> amq@caip.UUCP (Amqueue) writes: >In article <492@weitek.UUCP> robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >>If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory penalty of (pick one): >> twenty years in prison, >> five years in solitary, >> parole with Ray Frank as parole officer, >> >>would you still deliver a "guilty" verdict? > >all this is assuming that the jury has already decided the person is guilty >and is trying to further determine what the punishment should be... > >I guess the answer is yes, tho I am coming to the conclusion that either >the question is poorly formed or I am too asleep to parse it... > >>What if the penalty was $500 and a week in jail? Actually $500 and a week or two in a state jail might be most appropriate. Rape is quite common in jails, and it wouldn't be hard to have the guards arrange a most "educational" 7 days :-). This is what consistantly happens to men who sexually assault children.
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (09/29/86)
In article <415@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >>>If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory penalty of (pick one): >>> twenty years in prison, >>> five years in solitary, >>> parole with Ray Frank as parole officer, >>>would you still deliver a "guilty" verdict? >[>]*[...] >Actually $500 and a week or two in a state jail might be most appropriate. >Rape is quite common in jails, and it wouldn't be hard to have the guards >arrange a most "educational" 7 days :-). This is what consistantly happens >to men who sexually assault children. Not quite. It happens to those who are *imprisoned* for said assaults, whther or not the assaults actually occurred. I have an acquaintance who was caught up in the currently faddish witch-hunt of child abuse, and is now serving 5 years in the state pen for a crime which was never committed. He was imprisoned because he maintains his innocence (or stance of "not guilty", there is no such thing as "innocence" once you've been falsely accused of child abuse; the State educates you thoroughly!). Odd, perhaps, but I know of another man who was also accused, and plead guilty. 20 months suspended sentence is all he got. Is this fair? To either man? --- Just passin' through..