lol CNN

[Rogue13]

First of all thesapian, there seems to be some misunderstanding of basic premises of law.

 

For example, who said anything about going to jail? While awaiting trial many people are out in the community. This would likely be such a case due to the circumstances.

 

And yes, in the case of a woman being attacked, the state do consider charging her, they have to. It is up to the district attorney's office (or equivalent) to decide if there are grounds (or if it is in the public interest) to go any further. This is referrred to as due process and is the procedure that the authorities are going through, and MUST GO THROUGH, now with the father who killed the other guy.

 

Next point - double jeopardy - You appear worried about the killer's metal suffering. I would argue that having the state sanction your actions would help address this. Furthermore, there being no time limit on murder, the state, for whaterver reason, could choose to at some later date to charge the killer. If you go to trial and are aquitted this cannot occur (in most cases).

 

As to your point that people are innocent until proven guilty, I pleased we agree on this. Unfortunately, the father may have committed a crime (killing a man). There's very damning evidence (one body and a confession). This is usually a crime (depends on jurisdiction) both state and federal. The law permits extenuating circumstances (such as self defence (i.e. justifiable homicide). Now he may need to defend his actions or the state may choose not to proceed, but again due process must be followed.

[thesapien]

Rogue13, you're not making any sense. Now you're saying the father is guilty of a crime even before a trial! So the dead man is innocent until proven guilty but the father is guilty no matter what?

 

No, we don't just go consider charging the woman of a crime, in my example of a woman killing her attacker. First, you need evidence that a crime had been committed, then you consider charging her.

 

A dead body is not evidence of a crime. The father explaining why and how he killed the man is not a confession. You really should be more careful with your words. Do I seriously need to explain this? In order for something to be a "crime" it must be illegal. Killing someone is legal in the right circumstances. Thus, a dead body is simply evidence that someone was killed and not necessarily of a crime.

 

If someone is charged with murder, they will be arrested. To get bail while awaiting trial is something else you have to fight for in court, somehow demonstrating that you'll still actually be around for the trial. On a murder charge, you'd better have a good lawyer and good luck.

 

"Due process" ought to begin with someone suspecting a crime was committed and if so doing an investigation. After an investigation, if there seems to be evidence pointing to a crime and suspect, THEN you file for a warrant. You can't just skip all of that and go around arresting everybody. You're skipping over some of the most important steps.

 

And don't make it sound like it would be better for the father to had been charged with murder and then let off. I would never want a murder charge on my record, nor should you.

[Rogue13]

thespian,

 

I believe I'm both being consistant and making sense, unfortunately, once agian you appear to not be reading or understanding what I have written.

 

You're a little bit all over the place but I will try to respnd to your points.

 

1) I never said he was guilty of a crime, I said he may have committed a crime. There is a VAST difference between the two. The whole reason there are lawyers (or at least so many of them) is that the law typically allows for extenuating circumstnaces in defence of a crime such as justifieable homicide. This goes back to my due process arguement in my previous post. So yes, he can be, and currently is, guilty (dictionary not legal sense) of homicide but innocent of murder (or even manslaughter) (legal sense).

 

2) Actually, we in most cases they do just go and CONSIDER charging a women with a crime in your scenario, we have to. That is the process. The state may just choose not to proceed where appropriate. There are a couple of exceptions that fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction but your scenario is not one of them. Broadly speaking, homicide consists of a class of crimes of which murder is the most serious, followed by manslaughter which is less serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide ( there are degrees of each of these but i'm getting tired of typing and are easily found).

 

3) the presence of a body is not necessarily evidence of a crime and but standing over a corpse and saying 'I did it' is a confession but not necessarily an admission of murder.

 

I don't know who broke your heart in the justice system but you seem somewhat jaded.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

 

2)

[MrMan11]

I don't know about the US but here in Britain we have inquests for occasions such as this, an investigation that is run like a court but that does not pass judgment, it just decides if there were any unlawful actions committed and if they should be passed on to court. The way I see it is yes there should be a proper, but tactful, investigation into the events. The father is justified in his attempt to protect his family, however had the man only been rendered unconscious and been put on trial it should have resulted in the maximum penalty available to the law, which in any sane modern society should be life imprisonment. This would happen preferably somewhere nasty like the Antarctic territories.

[eroeronomi]

How do you rape a 4 year old? Rofl.

 

I understand what you people are saying but. We need EVIDENCE. Whether it's guilty until proven innocent or vice versa. You STILL need evidence. If there were bystander watching the attempted rape and the father killing the to-be-rapist. Then obviously he shouldn't be charged with anything as that's just like self defense. But if no one saw it other than the kid, father, and rapist. Who's to say he didn't have ulterior motive for beating him to death and framing that the murdered tried to rape his daughter and told her to keep quiet or something?

 

What we need here is real unbiased and impartial Justice. OOOOOH TYRAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Um, dude, he walked up on the guy in the act.

 

Furthermore, IIRC, they also did DNA tests on the girl (and the pantless corpse) which should be getting back soon (if not allready) which will back him up.

 

And remember, in cases like this, a trial isn't really necessarily necessary, it all depends on what the investigators find.

[thesapien]

Furthermore' date=' IIRC, they also did DNA tests on the girl (and the pantless corpse) which should be getting back soon (if not allready) which will back him up.

 

And remember, in cases like this, a trial isn't really necessarily necessary, it all depends on what the investigators find.

[/quote']

That was also my point, that I said over and over again to no avail.