Man Not Guilty in 'Dungeon' Rapes

[Purveyor]

(04-23) 09:09 PDT Darlington, S.C. (AP) --

A jury has found a convicted sex offender accused of raping two teen girls in an underground bunker not guilty of kidnapping, sex crimes and assault with intent to kill.

Kenneth Glenn Hinson, 48, wiped his eyes and mouth and appeared to cry after the jury read its verdict, which followed about four hours of deliberations over two days.

---
Authorities had charged that Hinson snatched the 17-year-old girls from their bedroom last year and dragged them one at a time to the underground room hidden beneath a tool shed, where he raped and bound them with duct tape. Prosecutors said Hinson expected the girls to die because the room had no air supply.

However, Hinson testified during the six-day trial that the girls had consensual sex with him. He said they made up the story so they would be able to take drugs from the underground room, which he used to store marijuana.

---EOE---

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/23/national/a075737D45.DTL

[acmavm]

1. He'd already been convicted of raping a 12-year old?

Oh yeah, I'd take this guys word all right.

[Richard Steele]

4. Well, a jury who heard all the evidence said he didn't do this particular thing.

:shrug:

[acmavm]

22. Juries also found T. Cullen Davis innocent, O.J. too.

What's your point?

[Richard Steele]

26. My point is that neither you nor I actually know jack squat about this case.

So maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions
based on what we WANT to be true.

[nam78_two]

73. Mob lynching seems very popular as a concept in America

:shrug:
Apparently due process is less appealing than deciding with no actual evidence that someone is guilty :-|.
I am all for questioning the system in any situation but this armchair Nancy Gracing day in and day out here (and in homes around the country presumably given the popularity of that Greta Van Susteran/Nancy Grace garbage) is scary.

[TahitiNut]

81. We have a thing about killing mockingbords.

Funny about that. :shrug:

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

120. Nobody found either one of them "innocent"

"not guilty" does not equal innocence. It means that there's reasonable doubt about the facts necessary for a conviction.

[acmavm]

133. For all intents and purposes it's the same thing. I know the terms. It's

'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

In both cases these bastards skated.

[depakid]

134. It's NOT the same thing

For example, if OJ were proven innocent, he wouldn't have a wrongful death judgment against him.

[acmavm]

141. Civil law and tort law are two different things. And what I mean by it

amounts to the same thing is that in the eyes of the world, they are innocent. As in the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'. They were not proven guilty.

[depakid]

148. The crux of it is that defendant wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

It's a VERY sad commentary on America- and Americans, that people don't grasp the difference. It's one of the basic components of due process.

Of course, as we can see on this thread, even a number of progressives don't care much about due process in this country anymore- especially when it gets in the way of having their "pound of flesh."

They're perfectly satisfied to sell out their children's legacy to satisfy their primal urges.

[uppityperson]

75. Wrong. It wasn't proven he DID beyond a reasonable doubt.

They did not say he didn't do it. There is a difference.

[Richard Steele]

84. Not a "fine" distinction at all. I misspoke, and now stand corrected.

I thank you for the correction. (and certainly not for the first time. :hug:)

[uppityperson]

85. No problem, I do all the time. It is a difference that many people don't understand.

Our court system has its good and bad points. Ye who has the most money and can hire the best lawyer can often win because of the basics of having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, restrictions on what can be told the jury, instructions on what evidence to consider and what the results must mean. It is not simple, it is not easy, justice does not always prevail.

[ThomCat]

7. Juries tend to find teens to be the least honest witnesses

and teen girls are judged to be less honest than teen boys. I remember reading that in studied we reviewed in one of psych classes almost 20 years ago.

It's amazing that the jury would believe a convicted sex offender over 2 teenaged girls. If even a convicted child molester is considered more credible, it's no wonder that women don't report rapes. We, as a society, don't seem to want to see anyone actually go to jail for this crime.
:grr:

[ieoeja]

42. Where does it say the jury believed the defendant?

Lots of jurists take that "innocent until proven guilty" concept to heart.

[ThomCat]

43. testamony is considered proof if the jury believes you.

So if juries tend to be less trusting of certain people, and if there are measurable prejudices that tend to influence juries, then that has a lot of bearing.

Life is not a TV show. Even if there is physical evidence, it still almost always comes down to who do they trust.

[lastliberalintexas]

79. The jury might not have heard of the prior conviction

Under evidentiary rules, prior convictions are not always admissible in the current trial. (and I didn't take the time to read the whole story)

Though you are correct that women still face a great deal of disbelief when reporting a rape.

[varkam]

88. I would imagine a previous sex crime conviction

might be too prejudicial for jurors in determining the facts of this case, but I'm not sure.

[depakid]

202. Whether it came in or not, the jury knew

With all of the publicity surround the case and the prior conviction, the jury pool was tainted before the trial began.

Under the circumstances, that makes their verdict all that much more credible- although what people don't seem to realize is that this guy isn't going anywhere- he's still facing burglary and firearm counts.

[LisaL]

269. They usually try to find jurors that don't know much about the

case. Maybe those without access to the internet or TV.

[wakeme2008]

2. something tells me the two girls looked funny to the jury....

And the story of him carrying them to the dungeon just did not sounds right to me

[LostinVA]

3. WTF???

I am almost rendered speechless by this.

They were SEVENTEEN, so there's no way it was consensual anyway. And, yeah, most girls I know would love to crawl into a dirt hole with a 4'-high ceilings to have sex with someone.

UGH.

[kiahzero]

5. Age of consent in S.C. is 16. (n/t)

[NashVegas]

93. What Kind of 17 Year Old Girls Would Consent to Sex With This?

[Tempest]

99. The kind that want drugs

He was also arrested for selling pot.

[0rganism]

128. yet another implicit argument for legalization

but you'll never hear that angle discussed by the talking heads

[endarkenment]

9. South Carolina: 14 for women 16 for men. nt.

[DixieBlue]

108. wait, the age of consent is 14 for girls!

girls!

and why is it younger for girls than boys?

that is beyond messed-up.

[endarkenment]

136. It was eventually declared unconstitutional

And it seems the law has changed and consent is 14 if your partner is within three years of your age and 16 otherwise.

[Shakespeare]

39. I'm speechless, too.

What the FUCK was that jury thinking?

[marshall]

140. Some people said the same about Elizabeth Smart

That she ran off with the foul smelling crazed coot that kidnapped her. It's not like these men look like Justin Timberlake or Brad Pitt--these are NOT the type of man a teen age girl fantasizes about running away with.

[mainegreen]

6. The jury had to believe beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty.

They may have thought he probably was guilty, but still felt there was a chance that he wasn't.
A Civil trial brought by the parents could bring a different verdict.

What I don't get is that if these girls are 17, why is that not statutory rape? Or did I miss that part?
(never mind, saw post higher up now)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I'm going to have to assume...

that nine impartial jurors know a lot more about the particulars of this case than people who just read this article.

[Tempest]

15. I'm going to have to agree

For example, the girls claimed to have escaped. The cops would have found physical evidence of their being bound and held in the room. That alone would have convicted him.

[LostinVA]

17. Yup, because guilty rapists are ALWAYS convicted

Oh, wait... they usually aren't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Because people who don't know squat about the case...

ALWAYS know so much more than the jurors.

:crazy:

[bettyellen]

57. yep! we know he was convicted for raping a 12 year old and the jury had no idea....

that's how it works.
:eyesroll:

[Raskolnik]

67. Yes, that's exactly as it should be.

Prior crime evidence is not admissible (with limited exceptions) for very good reasons. If you can't convict someone of a crime w/out mentioning prior bad acts, you don't have sufficient evidence to satisfy reasonable doubt.

That's how it works.

[bettyellen]

68. just correcting the other poster... since we actually DO know more than the jury.

and in this case, it's a damned shame.

[Raskolnik]

69. Do you think the prosecution proved him guilty?

I have quite limited knowledge of the actual trial. Are you familiar with the evidence that was presented?

[bettyellen]

70. i remember reading about it when he was on the lam + this guy sounded awful but...

from what i understand, they were all quasi related/ sort of dependant on this guy. one of these gal's mom was shacking up with the guy in the trailer next door, and i believe he let them live on his property and it looks like they were all stoners. so nobody is "believable", right? which is the card this guy played..... i think the fact that he was helping support them heavily weighed in his faovr. people label it domestic BS and move on. i am kinda shocked that they thought the gals screwed up not calling 911 fast enough or didn;t have that story straight- as i recall- they wandered onto a highway and flagged down a strangers car who drove them to a house. the other thing i remember is that this guy took off when the girls escaped and hid in the woods for four days. somehow he got the sudden idea they were coming after him for the drugs. and oh yeah, the girls did this all so they could steal the drugs and not get in trouble. i think they were going for a super long sentance and maybe that made the jury hesitate. i wonder.

[Tempest]

113. You don't know more than the jury about this case

But by all means, please convict him twice for something he did 20 years ago.

[bettyellen]

i know he was convicted of rape prior to this, and the jury did not know that.

but by all means, pretend that wouldn't matter to them. i know he pretended he never touched the girls- till he found out about the 1/2 dozen DNA samples that matched him. i know that after that he changes his story and it was so consensual, they bought sex toys together.... funny stories from a not so funny guy. :shrug:
so my point is juries don't see alot, and trust me, they are not always so smart either....

[Tempest]

117. You keep bringing up evidence that hasn't been publicly released

Once again I ask you, where are you getting your information?

But feel free to ignore it once again.

[bettyellen]

119. yes, the info is out there- and not so hard to find, because the whole trial started last week.

try googling the local SC papers there's The State and i can't remember the other.
This guy was full off shit, maybe the girls are too, but he is obviously made this story up as needed.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

127. i guess you missed a few, huh? well now that YOU AGREE THE DEFENDANT LIED ABOUT THE GALS DOWNTHREAD

and you been royally schooled...
i bid you adieu! :hi:

[Tempest]

24. Yes, they usually are

And there's a lot of innocent men accused of rape who are also convicted.

It appears you've let your emotions take control. You don't know the evidence presented by either side in this case.

[TahitiNut]

31. I can't figure out how he would have supposedly kidnapped two teen-agers ..

... in the "early hours of the morning" - one at a time - in what's apparently a mobile home park - and NOT wake up anyone. Why didn't the 2nd teen-ager or their parents wake up when the first was allegedly taken? Why didn't the parents wake up when either were allegedly taken? Where was his live-in girlfriend and her daughter that they weren't woken up?

While I'm sure there was some explanation given, I have to really wonder how - attempting to assume the girls' story was true - anyone would even form such a 'plan' under the living circumstances I've seen described. It's not just trying to figure out how it COULD have happened - it's also trying to figure out how someone would even PLAN such a thing. I'm not questioning motive - even though TWO 17-year-olds seems far too "ambitious" for someone whose conviction was for ONE 12-year-old - but I'm questioning the very notion that some guy, no matter how deranged, would even imagine such an act.

It sure doesn't seem plausible to me.

[Tempest]

33. I was reading up on the story from other sources

And it seems one of the girls he supposedly kidnapped accused him of raping her when she was 14 years old.

She apparently never told anyone until this trial.

I can see why the jury didn't believe them.

Especially since the girls lived in a single wide trailer. Those things are tiny and there's no real privacy. You're right to be skeptical.

[bettyellen]

62. the live in girlfriend? is one of the girls mom, all of them living in trailers on HIS property...

and when the gals escaped, he went on the lam for four days. "supposedly" as you would say, for other reasons. ya know, the drugs...
he is godddamn lucky the jury had no idea he was convicted of raping a child or that he was accused by ne of these gals when she was 14.
imagine that. she accused him of rape at 14 and yet at 17 her family let her live next door. now gosh i wonder like you do, why didn;t her family come to her immediate rescue? :sarcasm:
the drugs did it! is this guys whole defense! LOL. get real.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bronyraurus]

107. I think that's

the first time I've ever agreed with yo ass.

[shenmue]

10. Another lousy verdict

Sometimes the jury just gets it wrong.

:grr:

No way would the victims be interested in being trapped in a dungeon.

[LostinVA]

11. They were also minors, which makes the verdict even stranger

[Tempest]

13. Minors can lie as well as an adult

Read the entire article. There were holes in their story.

[LostinVA]

16. I read the entire article -- there were holes in his story as well

Why should I believe a convicted sex felon over the girls?

Did I say minors can't lie? Duh. No, I didn't.

Keep on making excuses for the man.

[Tempest]

23. What holes?

Point them out in the article and not just what you perceive.

[bettyellen]

177. the entire issue if he ever had sex with them he lied about at trial- did a total 180

and that kind of goes to the heart of it.

[endarkenment]

40. why?

Are you also confused about the age of consent in south carolina? It appears to be 14 for women.

[bettyellen]

106. not with 48 year old it's not, that's statuatory rape. but tks for the disinfo!

[endarkenment]

135. Ah yes recent changes in SC made 16 the age of consent if

the other person is three or more years older. So you are correct. Until recently the age of consent was 14 and now it is 16. So how old were these women when they had sex with this man? 16 or under 16? If they were under 16 what was the status of the law in SC when the incident occurred?

I responded to a post which claimed that the verdict was an outrage as this was obviously statuatory rape. I have seen no evidence that it was, and I am pretty sure that the SC DA would have brought those charges if they applied, so I remain confident that they did not.

[bettyellen]

171. they have him on gun and drug charges too.. so they ain't bothering with that

i don;t know when the law changed, but i have to say i am astounded at the amount of people who'd be cool with this 48 yr old drug dealing ex con former child rapist and a 14 year old- legal or not. it's fucked up.

[LostinVA]

153. I love how some posters make believe age of consent means the same thing

as sex with minors is okay to justify this type of garbage. As I've explained in many threads over the years and in several posts in this thread: in NO STATE is sex with a minor legal. ZERO. Age of consent means that's when a child is can legally consent to sex. So, if it's 14, that means a 14-year-old having sex with a 13 year old raped her, even if it's consensual.

[endarkenment]

208. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

I've googled the SC law several times now. It is quite clear. 14 if your partner is within 3 years of your age, 16 otherwise.

here, have at it:
http://www.moraloutrage.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Southcarolina

[Tempest]

12. Did you bother to read the entire story?

Defense attorney Rick Hoefer spent much of his nearly two-hour closing argument Sunday picking apart what he called inconsistencies in the teens' testimony, including how long it took them to call 911 after their alleged escape and whether they saw Hinson with a gun.


The girls claimed to have escaped. There may not have been any evidence they were ever bound and held in the room. That information was withheld from the story.

[LostinVA]

14. Yes, I did

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Did you read the court transcripts?

[Tempest]

19. My question wasn't directed to you.

What about physical evidence they were held? There would have been a ton of it and that alone would have convicted him.

I'd like to hear what the prosecution has to say about the physical evidence it provided to the jury.

[Richard Steele]

20. You're simply assuming that everything they said was true. The jury disagrees with you.

[Toucano]

74. There's no evidence they WERE trapped in a dungeon.

It's their STORY, and it didn't make sense.

[Xithras]

25. Was there any physical evidence to back up the accusations?

His claim is entirely possible, because sex for drugs is a fairly common occurence among those who are hooked*. If they were bound, there should have been physical evidence...tape residue on their hands, tape on the ground with skin and hair samples from them. There would be bruising from the rape, and at least some marks from the struggle. If he entered their home twice to kidnap them, there should also be at least some physical evidence in the home of his presence. Did the police have ANYTHING other than their word? If so, I can't understand how he could have been found not guilty.

*And before anyone jumps on me for making assumptions, I traded drugs for sex more than once in my younger, wilder days. As long as it was all consensual and everyone walked away happy, I saw no harm in it.

[Tempest]

27. Ah, a voice of reason

Hopefully your post will get them "hang 'em" crowd to think twice.

[NaturalHigh]

45. Don't count on it.

That's a pretty strong faction around here.

[bettyellen]

86. there was evidence they were bound w/ duct tape, there was evidence he fucked them.

i guess since he left no prints it was all a big coincidence that he went on the lam...., and someone without fingerprints tied them up and didn;t rape them. yeah those gals are big iars!

[Bluerthanblue]

196. yes there were marks on the girls arms, there were also

people who saw the girls running and crying after the fact.
here is a link-
with photos of the dungeon and the girls arms.


http://wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6399652

The "issues" that apparently didn't 'jibe' for the jury were the fact that that the girls didn't SCREAM when he was there- :nuke: (it is clear none of the jurors are survivors of rape/sexual assault)

One girl didn't mention a gun or knife to the police, but did during testimony- the other mentioned a gun to the police but didn't mention it during testimony???
:shrug:

The jury also didn't understand why the rapists fingerprints weren't on the duck tape !!-
:shrug:

Think about this for a moment- the MOTHER of one of the girls, was the live in girlfriend of the rapist- and the girls lived in a trailer on HIS LAND- And they'd need to do this to get drugs???- (Not!) And they'd WANT to do this??? why?

the girls were 17- sorry, i ran away from home at 17- you think you're an adult- but you are NOT-

they couldn't have a beer, buy a friggin lottery ticket, vote, or join the military with out a parents signature, but they could consent to sex with a man who was 30yrs OLDER than them??- easily old enough to be their father???

Something is really really wrong here-

[Kopterman]

259. nobody has sex for weed. nt

[hedgehog]

28. Maybe they can get him on a zoning violation.

I doubt he had a building permit for his dungeon.

For what it's worth. thre was a very similar case that came to light in Syracuse a few years back. this guy would kidnap women off the street, hold them in his hidden basenment room, then release them after 3-12 months. Sometimes he actually took them driving, but they were all too scared to tell people what their situation was until the last victim made her escape.

[Tempest]

30. The Jamelske case is not similar at all

In the Jamelske case, there was a ton of physical evidence. It was going on for some time and there were other victims who testified at his trial.

There must not have been any physical evidence in this case, and there were no additional victims who came forward.

[yardwork]

315. Take a look at the photos in the link above - something happened to the girls

Look at the bruises and marks on their arms. That's physical evidence.

[endarkenment]

41. It seems it wasn't actually a dungeon. nt.

[Exultant Democracy]

94. I used to live in Fayetteville and I was back visiting when the case broke

I was driving to a friends house and all of the roads were blocked off and I found out that night why. Sick scary bastard.

[ismnotwasm]

29. Can we all agree that rape

Is a heinous, vicious crime, that occurs every day, multiple times a day? That it's uses range from acts of violence to acts of war? How about men as well as women stand up and say no more? I'd rather not take steps backward by defending every publicized rape case as a probable "false accusation"

http://www.mencanstoprape.org/

I know Andrea Dworkin is disliked around here, but this is well worth reading.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html

[TahitiNut]

32. I don't know of anyone who isn't outraged and disgusted by rape.

While there are surely some who regard specific instances of 'statutory rape' (boyfriend-girlfriend with 'consent' not sanctioned by law, for example) not as heinous as what we'd ordinarily regard as rape (forcible), I don't think ANYONE disagrees that it's despicable and heinous.


I'll never forget having the "fear of God" thrown at me when I was a 16-year-old. My 2nd cousin and I were sleeping in the 2nd floor bedroom of his grandparents' home - with the stairway door locked so we wouldn't be harassed by his younger sister and her friends having pajama party on the first floor. His father awakened us around midnight or 1am by banging on the door and yelling loudly to open the door. He read us the riot act - saying we could have been jailed for statutory rape for merely being overnight in the same house (unsupervised) as his daughter and her friends. (I still don't know whether such a conviction would have been possible, but the FEAR of it stays with me.) Their homes were in a family 'compound' out in the country ... and when I visited for a few weeks in the summer, I always stayed upstairs at his grandparents' home. I can't remember what the deal was that night - I guess we were supposed to stay at my cousin's house next door that night and didn't for some reason. All I know is that almost a half-century ago, I got the shit scared out of me.

[ismnotwasm]

34. It's these "debates" that get me

This is a public, political forum I understand, and I am solidly in the camp that people can discuss what they want.

But Rape is a topic that seems to bring out strange apologist type comments, even though I'm sure the posters in no way mean them that way. My father raised me to believe that a man "can't help himself" after a certain level of arousal. He would also happily beat the shit of any man he considered a rapist if he was able (Getting old, but back in the day, he was a big tough swede)

As an aside---I just learned this at a forensic nursing conference. Let's say two 14 year old are in love, and sexually active. (we'll say male and female) The girl performs fellatio on the boy. He takes his cell camera and takes a picture. A week later they break up, and the boy (or girl) posts the picture on the net. The kid can get busted for producing and distributing child porn and be registered as a sex offender-- for the rest of their life. (I'm think this doesn't vary from state to state, but it may) The presenter brought this up as a cautionary tale for those parents in the audience with kids of that age.

[Tempest]

35. No one is apologist for rape

However, there is a desire to make sure those innocent of the accusations are given a fair trial in the court of public opinion as well as in criminal court.

[ismnotwasm]

36. The comment wasn't personal

(If that was your impression, I apologize)

To me, rape has been and continues to be part of a culture--This is merely my opinion, and out of context, perhaps for this thread

There is also a desire to gives those raped a fair trial in the court of public opinion as well as criminal court.

[TahitiNut]

38. I'm probably at the far end of the spectrum with how appalled I am at rape.

In fact, I just cannot even imagine (in the deepest corners of my psyche) how a male could do that. Personally, I'm not capable of making love WITH a woman who's not both possessed of her faculties and somewhat equally motivated. It's just not part of my wiring - in fact, I'm 'wired' in a way that makes me go limp (definitely not al dente) in the absence of her eager participation. (Not 'macho' - just a fact of life.)

Since I'm somewhat of an extremist regarding how seriously I regard rape, it accentuates my opinion of how appalling it would be for someone innocent to be accused of it.

I think it's probably part of the 'downside' of both our perception of the severity of the crime and the penalties for that crime that we (any of us) appreciate how appalling it would be to be innocent and accused of such an act.

After all, it's one thing to be wrongly accused of littering (something minor) and quite another thing to be wrongly accused of rape. Not only can someone be convicted of rape without physical evidence, it's a major stigma to even be accused of it - and it's the kind of crime that rarely is witnessed.

As we contemplate the Innocence Project and the 120-or-so people who've been PROVEN innocent of a capital crime for which they were found guilty in a trial and sentenced to death ... the specter of being wrongly convicted of a serious crime (with fewer 'checks and balances' than a capital crime) attains larger proportions. It's fucking scary.

[BlooInBloo]

47. extreme TMI.

[TahitiNut]

48. Sorry you have a problem..

:shrug:

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dorian Gray]

179. Well

the kids shouldn't be posting picture of themselves fellating on the net. That's pretty bad, actually.

[NaturalHigh]

44. I would hope that we could all agree on that.

I would also hope that someone should still have to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before being jailed for that crime. In this case, the jury obviously was not convinced.

[varkam]

37. Seems that some

want to use this man's history to convict him of this crime, too. With sex crimes, especially if the person has a history of sexual deviancy it's guilty until proven innocent. Apparently, for some however, a jury to return a not guilty verdict is still not enough. He's still guilty to some.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. I Was Surprised By The Verdict. Maybe They Were In Fact Lying.

Since I wasn't at the trial I don't know all of the facts nor the in depth reasoning to the jury's decision, but since the jury acquitted him I have to definitely keep an open mind to the possibility that they did in fact accuse him falsely. The jury wouldn't be so quick to acquit if there was any real level of credible evidence that the rapes occurred.

[bettyellen]

60. you should read linda fairsteins book on prosecuting sex crimes- you can't fathom the stupidity of

some juries. for instance one slam dunk prosecution got thrown out because a single juror could not be convinced that you could penetrate a woman while standing. who knew you should explain that's physically possile? unfuckingbelievablely stupid.

[Bluerthanblue]

49. wtf???? this whole story really is messed up

He's being held on 'possession of a fire arm' ? But the state had 'issues' with whether the girls actually SAW the gun he (obviously) had???

The girls would really be excited to have sex in an underground bunker????

How did they know the pot was there?

Why isn't he being held for possession with intent to sell (you don't usually build underground bunkers for a 'one time thing')- and he even said that is where he kept his stash.


This sounds so suspect to me.- The girls had nothing to gain by bringing false claims against this guy- If they were doing this for the reasons the man said, there would have been no reason to call the police at all-

I fear this is just another sign that the victims are going to be victimized yet again in the USA-
We seem to be headed backwards.

[NaturalHigh]

50. Could it be that the jury...

heard a lot more evidence than we've been presented in the story? He was acquitted, so obviously the state failed to prove his guilt.

[librechik]

51. but underage girls? Isn' t that automatically non-consensual?

soemthing screwy here...

[LostinVA]

54. A point I made several hours ago

WTF???

[Bluerthanblue]

56. i agree, something really doesn't jibe--- eom

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Age of consent varies by state.

See up above, this has been responded to several times. SC, like quite a few southern states has a rather low age of consent.

[LostinVA]

89. You are mixing up sex with a minor and age of consent

In no state can you legally have sex with a minor, except for a "Romeo and Juliet" provision age difference -- usually two-four years. Age of consent means when can a child legally have sex with another minor. Neither of these issues were at play here: he had illegal sex with a minor, even if by any slim chance it was consensual in Bizarro World.

[bettyellen]

95. you know why they let him off don't you? they were all living on HIS property so

everybody figures he can do what he want, not anybody's business....he pays the rent. shit, these gals are ungrateful brats who owed him. that's how it works.

[LostinVA]

97. That's what I'm betting, as well as maybe thinking they were all "trashy"

[bettyellen]

100. absolutely- he's good enough for her mom, why is she complaining?

i'm sure the jury thought these gals didn;t believe these girls deserved any better.

[LostinVA]

101. I know enough folks from around that area

That I'm betting that's at least part of it.

"They probably wanted it. You know how those trashy girls are."

[bettyellen]

103. well we do have people- men and former drug addicts of course- who agree with that

i guess if i had whored myself for drugs, i'd want to believe everybody does it. just like if i was a guy who couldn;t get it up easily - i'd sure go an extrapolate like hell that men don;t do theses sorts of things...


edit corr to sub line, oops, sorry!

[Raskolnik]

151. Do you have any actual evidence to support this statement?

Have the jurors made statements to that effect, or are you speculating?

[Codeine]

61. I don't think

17 is underage in that state.

[LostinVA]

90. Yes, it is -- 17 is underage in every state

You cannot have sex with a minor except for Romeo and Juliet provisions.

[endarkenment]

137. That is simply not true.

Have you even tried looking this up? I have and the laws are all over the place and different in every state.

[LisaL]

149. I don't think so.

If that was the case, he would obviously have been charged with statutory rape. He wasn't, because the females were over the age of consent.

[LostinVA]

155. The age of consent doesn't mean you can have sex with them if you're over 18

Except for Romeo and Juliet provisions.

Jesus, people on this thread are beyond misinformed on this, either or purpose or honestly. IN NO STATE CAN YOU LEGALLY HAVE SEX WITH A MINOR UNLESS YOU FIT WITHIN SPECIFIC ROMEO AND JULIET LAWS.

Period.

[LostinVA]

156. No, I'm completely right

[Raskolnik]

159. Are you sure?

Could you point out the statutory authority upon which you're relying?

[NaturalHigh]

63. I don't know what the age of consent...

is for that state. If they were under the age of consent at the time, he unfortunately was not charged with statutory rape.

[Bucky]

71. It's 14, according to upthread

That's a little disturbing in itself. I wonder if Strom had a hand in writing that law.

[LostinVA]

91. No, that's age of consent, not sex with a minor

People are confusing this. That means, sex with anyone under 14 is illegal, even if the older person is 14. Except for Romeo and Juliet provisions, in NO STATE is it legal for an adult to have sex with a minor unless they're married.

[LisaL]

150. I think it's you who is confused.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. not only 'could it be' that the jury heard much more

evidence than this article gives us- I'm positive they did.- but I'm NOT positive that 'guilt' wasn't proven beyond a 'reasonable doubt'- reasonable is relative. And the tenor of this country really is one of selfish entitlement. Bully mentality-

this just makes no sense at all.

Do you sincerly believe that OJ was 'not-guilty'? or that he had the best defense money could buy???

[kiahzero]

58. There existed a reasonable doubt there.

More likely than not, he was guilty. That's why he was found to be liable for wrongful death.

[NaturalHigh]

64. I personally think OJ was guilty as hell...

but the jury said otherwise. In our system, that means he is legally not guilty, just like the alleged rapist in this story. Our legal system is designed to give defendants the benefit of the doubt unless the state can prove them guilty, which it failed to do in this case.

[Bucky]

72. Oh, yeah? Then how come he's been going around the country looking for the real killers?

Hell, he even had developed an elaborate and wholy original theory on the crime, but then his book got censored by Fox News.

[LostinVA]

53. You listed everything better than I could

I was too angry to get it all organized after reading some of the responses in this thread.

[Bluerthanblue]

55. I'm glad I made

some sense for a change. :silly:

But please read this article- It makes even LESS sense now-

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/nation/17123076.htm


One of the girls is the DAUGHTER of 'his girlfriend' and both girls live in a trailer on his land???

The girls lived in a singlewide mobile home beside another occupied by Hinson and a woman who was Hinson's girlfriend and the mother of one of the accusers. The accusers testified Hinson grabbed them one-by-one about 1 a.m. and forced them into the 4-foot-high bunker with threats he would kill them if they tried to escape.

Jurors were picked last Monday in Georgetown, S.C., 70 miles away, because of concerns that local jurors might have been swayed by publicity. Local and national media followed the incident intensely after the girls' alleged escape from the bunker March 14, 2006, and the manhunt that ensued. Hinson was arrested after spending three days hiding in the woods near his home north of Hartsville, S.C.

COME ON- consentual sex??? in an underground bunker- with your mothers boyfriend who spent time in prison for the rape of a 12yr old???? who is supposed to be in a program for sexual offenders????

And this was CONSENTUAL????

(i'm a survivor- i understand the anger- i DON'T understand the verdict- or maybe i should say, i don't accept that the jury saw the girls without predjuce, especially in light of the Duke case-)



He is a felon in possesion of a fire arm- but isn't he also a felon in possession of a firearm and in possession of enough pot, and the admission that he was dealing- to get him under the gun/drug law?

I personally believe that pot should NOT be against the law- but it is- and he was clearly making some illegal money-

peace,
blu

[Jamastiene]

77. Another question I have.

If he wasn't guilty, then why did he run from the law and hide in the woods for three days? I thought innocent people didn't run from the law....

[Bluerthanblue]

178. he said he thought it was because they'd found his stash-

:shrug:

hmmmmm....

??

[LostinVA]

92. Jeebus -- IF the jurors heard this, how in the hell could they return that verdict?

Did they just dismiss it as a bunch of trashy people? WTF???

[Tempest]

116. How could they have returned that verdict?

If there was clear cut evidence, they wouldn't have.

It's a damned good thing people aren't tried and convicted by those outside the courtroom who don't have a clue.

[Bluerthanblue]

181. denial- and I sincerly do think the Duke case played into their

mindset-

It is NOT a 'simple thing' to have to go to court against a rapist- The girls have been violated yet again-

I'd be very interested to know how the jury justifies their "not guilty" finding- what "reasonable doubt" they got hung up on.

:nuke:

[Raskolnik]

183. Do you think its possible that the evidence just wasn't sufficient to convict?

I assume you would agree that not every defendant is guilty, and not every case is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is it out of the question that the jury reached the correct conclusion given the evidence at trial?

[Bluerthanblue]

184. the man had sex with the two 17yr old girls, IN a 'bunker', ran away

when the police came, DID indeed have a gun (he had it on him when he was arrested)-
One of the girls was the DAUGHTER of his "girlfriend" and the other was his "step-daughters" best friend. I really can't say whether he was trying to kill them, but I DON'T believe that the sex was 'consensual' or that the girls 'gave it up' to him, so they could then turn around and 'get his stash' when he went to prison.

Juries are not infallible- and are not without prejudice, regardless of what may be stated at selection.

Sometimes the prejudices are subconscious-

I really would like to know what 'reasonable doubt' they had.

If there were a compelling reason- I can't understand why it hasn't been stated.

peace,
blu

[Raskolnik]

187. So you really don't know any more about the case than I do, but you assume that the 12 people

who actually heard all the pertinent evidence were wrong? I of course agree that juries are fallible, but in the absence of actual evidence that the defendant committed the crime, I can't disagree with the verdict.

I don't know nearly enough about this case to judge whether there was a "compelling reason" to acquit, but its important to remember: there doesn't have to a compelling reason to find a defendant not guilty--there has to be compelling evident to convict. That's a pretty important distinction.

[Bluerthanblue]

198. you don't really know why the jury let this man off, and yet you assume

that because they were 'the jury' that they couldn't be wrong???

The jury didn't like that the girls didn't scream when he came into their room- ... i can tell you that is NOT an uncommon response...

They didn't like that there were no finger prints on the 'duct tape'- ....you ???? they got the tape off themselves- ya think they may have messed up those prints???

"reasonable doubt"- is a rather relative term- I can disagree with the verdict- the evidence was there, perhaps not presented as skillfully as the defense atty presented his 'scenario' but there was enough physical evidence.

I don't have much faith in government any longer- Something about the concept of Bill Clinton being accused and vilified for his sexual alliance with Ms. Lewinsky's by a band of men who spoke with such moral authority, and then skulked away when their own dirty history,- an election that was perverted, and manipulated by the rich and powerful, and ultimately decided by the Supreme Court- the s--- load of lies that have been feed to us since the presidency was high jacked- .... my 'trust' in governmental institutions in the us is pretty piss poor-

So, no, long answer to your simple question. I feel there is very little reason to trust that the truth wins out in the us anymore.

even when it is trial by jury-

peace,
blu

[Jamastiene]

78. I have another question too.

If he wasn't guilty, then why did he run from the law and hide in the woods for three days? I thought innocent people didn't run from the law....

[High Plains]

104. Why run? Gun charges, marijuana charges...

[KingFlorez]

65. Outrageous

What in the world was that jury thinking?

[Raskolnik]

66. Maybe they were thinking that the prosecution didn't prove its case

And if that was the situation, they reached the correct verdict. Why is that outrageous?

[varkam]

87. Because with sex crimes

it's guilty until proven innocent - not the other way around.

[LostinVA]

98. You're right -- the female plaintiffs are usually guilty until proven innocent

[varkam]

111. There is a shaming aspect to even being accused with a sex crime

I take it you have never been accused of having committed a sex crime?

What, exactly, are female plaintiffs guilty until proven innocent of?

[bettyellen]

125. go google the defense opening arguement- it says the gals are gulity

of an elaborate scheme to steal this guys drugs. they were accused right out of the gate, and it's the most common thing in rape trials. where you been?

[LostinVA]

130. You go, girl!

[bettyellen]

131. why do these normally well informed men have their heads in the sand? why do these

normally skeptical men ant ot believe this ugly ass guy got a three way... and why are they so hopeful the Romeo and Juliet clause could be applied to a child's convicted rapist? Taken all together, it is astounding the misogyny here. And the ignorance, not that it excuses any of this, but normally these guys look up shit. All of a suddent hey're totally incapable of reading.

and how YOU doing, msB-Zilla?
:hug:

[LostinVA]

157. Every time one of these threads comes around -- ugh

Tres good! We have a piper lined up, finalizing the menu, and the save the date cards are going out this week. Yay!

[varkam]

139. Maybe they did.

I'm not more inclined to believe that than to believe that he raped them just because he is a male and they are female. But, apparently, just mentioning the fact that maybe the guy wasn't guilty makes me a "pro-rapist".

[bettyellen]

142. except at first he claimed to have never touched them... until the DNA nailed him-

and at that point, the story changed to they were having wild three ways with sex toys.
and you find it credible based on.... which of his conflicting, uncorroberated testimonies?

[varkam]

144. Did I ever say that I found his testimony credible?

No, I did not. Want to know why? Because I have not heard his testimony, as I was not a juror in this case. Maybe he was as guilty as sin and, for some reason, the jury did not convict - I have no idea. I am agnostic on this case with the notable exception of the verdict that the jury returned. If the jury found him not guilty, then that is the best that I have to go on as a removed participant in this whole thing.

[bettyellen]

146. yes "Maybe he did" was giving it creedence.... ignorantly- as you admit, but it does.

perhaps you'd rather read up before discusising it.
i know i would have preferred lots of people actually understand what consent means legally before embarrassing themselves here.
c ya!
:hi:

[varkam]

147. What a pant-load.

I can't find where I said "Maybe he did" - could you point that out to me? I believe what I said was maybe the girls were in it for the drugs which is, apparently, what the jury believed. I did not personally give it credance as I have not been speaking to whether I feel he was guilty or not. Withholding judgment is not the same as giving it credence. Also I don't think I ever brought up issues of consent, so what is your point?

[varkam]

145. Well...

I was referring to people who are accused of sex crimes, not victims or alleged victims of sex crimes.

And I realize one technique many defense lawyers perpetrate is to put the victim on trial - which is think is despicable. But, that wasn't what I was referring too.

And, if you mean to imply that such a notion is "okay" since lawyers try to drag victims through the mud, then I would refer you to the axiom that two wrongs do not make a right.

[LostinVA]

129. They are guilty of having had a sex life, or teh way they dress, etc.

Know how many rapes are actually reported? How many of those are taken to trial? And how many of THOSE are convicted? Know how many females are sexually assaulted every year? Average length of sentence for a convicted rapist? How many are repeat offenders? Huh? Can you answer those?

THEN: tell me how how very few men are falsely accused, but how often we hear about THAT -- both here and IRL.

These women -- and girls -- are deemed sluts from Day One. Oh yes, they are.

[bettyellen]

132. one of the two bought crack once last year- so the drug dealing child rapist has more cred....

so says the jury. and many people here.

[varkam]

143. I know that the number of sex crimes are generally underreported.

And any assertion that I'm claiming otherwise is a straw-man. How many of those are taken to trial? I would imagine a good number of them. How many of those are convicted? I don't know. How many females are sexually assaulted each year? Too many. Average sentence? I would imagine between 5 and 10 years. How many are repeat offenders? Not many, according to the center for sex offender management.

Well I happen to know one gentleman who was falsely accused of a sex crime. He did nothing wrong, and he even took a polygraph to prove it. Nonetheless, the DA (being tough on crime as they are) trumped up the charges to scare him into pleading to lesser charges (which he was innocent of). The result? He hasn't seen his children (or grand children) in four years, has had to move several times, and is forever "marked". So there's one case. I do find it interesting that you say "very few men" are falsely accused. Care to provide any sort of empirical data to back up that claim?

I think that there are two equally devastating problems here. One being that rape victims are often put on trial, which is utterly despicable, and I do think that there is way too much rape-myth acceptance going on in this culture (i.e. if a woman dresses a certain way, etc.). The other is that accusations, even if false, can alter a person's life irrevocably.

[Bentcorner]

203. "Plaintiffs"? It was a criminal case brought forward by a prosecutor, not a civil case.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

270. The "plaintiff" *should* have to prove their case.

Although it's worth noting in passing that in a criminal case there is no plaintiff; it's the state vs the accussed - the phrase you need is "alleged victim".

But "found guilty" is simply nonsense. The alleged victim and the alleged offender are given precisely equal treatment - neither of them is assumed to be either lying or telling the truth unless the state can prove so in a court of law beyond all reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury.

If they prove that the alleged victims are telling the truth, the alleged offender will be sentenced for the offence.

If they prove that the alleged offender is telling the truth, the alleged victims may well be senteced for perjury.

Regarding the alleged victims as "guilty until proven innocent" would be to require them to prove their case or else locking them up for perjury, *not* requiring them to prove their case or letting the person they're accusing go.

[High Plains]

105. And even guilty even when found innocent. Go figure.

[KingFlorez]

126. It's outrageous because the man will be free to do the same thing all over again

The man had a previous conviction, why on earth would the jury think that he wasn't capable of committing this crime?

[Raskolnik]

152. The jury didn't know about his previous conviction, which is as it should be

With very limited exceptions, we don't allow evidence of prior crimes to be presented to the jury. As a general proposition, I think its good we don't allow convictions based on "he's done something like this before, so he must have done it this time, too".

Do you disagree?

[Bluerthanblue]

199. why is it 'worse' to get a second DWI? why not just treat the

incident as a "stand alone" crime?

Why is it that a person who has done drugs can have their prior convictions mentioned?

the South Carolina court system says:

Under prior common law, moral turpitude was described as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the social duties which a man owes to his fellow man or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule or right and duty between man and man.” State v. Harvey, 275 S.C. 225, 227, 268 S.E.2d 587, 588 (1980). But the common law rule was replaced when South Carolina adopted Rule 609(a), SCRE. Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 432, 527 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2000).

Today, the South Carolina Rules of Evidence provide that if the witness has been convicted of a crime that is punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one year, and the probative value of the conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect, the conviction is admissible to attack the witness’s credibility. Rule 609(a)(1), SCRE. In addition, if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement the conviction is admissible to attack the witness’s credibility. Rule 609(a)(2), SCRE.

This was a citation on an appeal concerning burglary- why should sexual offenses be any different??

I do believe that the reality that someone has stepped over the boundary line once- while not conclusive evidence that they have done it again- but it is some indicator that the possibility is less "unlikely" than if there were no previous history.

Why do we interview perspective employees? why bother to ask what a persons last boss thought of them? If our 'history' is so un-important, so immaterial to our character, what difference would anything we've done in the past make? Why have people say "this man/woman has always been someone that you could count on to be responsible" if 'past performance' shouldn't enter in, should "positive" past performance be admissible??

[JVS]

201. if "the probative value of the conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect"

That's a big if. It's hard to imagine anything outweighing the prejudicial effect of being told someone raped a 12 year old. If you tell that to the jury it'll be instant conviction, whether he did the second crime or not.

[Bluerthanblue]

207. is it really?

all that hard to imagine anything outweighing the prejudicial effect of being told someone raped a 12yr old??-
If a prior conviction holds such 'sway' why do you suppose that is?- Why does a previous conviction on ANYTHING influence the 'likilihood' of having committed the same type of crime again??-

Everyone talks about "facing the concequences of your behaviour" but i don't see it. The man was convicted of forcibly raping a 12 yr old, then holding a knife to her neck, and saying that he would kill her if she told anyone- that is pretty ...."extreem" behaviour.
Behaviour most people could never imagine themself engaging in- behaviour that most people couldn't even imagine people they know engaging in. The man spent 9 out of the 20 yrs. he was sentenced to in jail. He was then let out, and not required to get further help to keep him from re-offending.
The HISTORY of his crime, SHOULD follow him and haunt him for the rest of his life- just as the memory of what happened to his victim will haunt her for the rest of HER life- he took something from that child that can NEVER be replaced, repaired, or recovered. And he should have the cushion of "innocence" tainted or deflated somewhat by his past, just as she has- After all, he CHOSE to rape a 12yr old- what 'choice' did she have? Other than suicide.

The notion that women (particularly young women) are only a little more than sexual objects- is so ingrained in human culture- look at how recently women were legally 'second class citizens'-

peace,
blu

[JVS]

209. Look it's quite simple. When people hear child-molester they want to kick that person hard.

And labelling a defendent as such will surely result in a conviction no matter what the evidence says, so you can't tell the jury.

We had a thread not long ago about child molesters getting out of jail and the citizens not giving a damn that they have to live under a highway because they couldn't find places to live. If people are that pissed off with them, there is no way they can get a fair trial.

[Bluerthanblue]

210. there is a very big difference between being apathetic about

people having to have to live under bridges solely because of their conviction of child molestation, and having a persons HISTORY speak about the posibility that the person being charged with rape, kidnapping, and assault on 17 yr old girls.

If you support keeping a defendants privious history of sexual assualt secret, why not all the other situations that previous history is admissable.
The crime he was convicted of, is not a "little incident"- and he was found GUILTY of it- He isn't the "clean slate" that protecting his past history from those trying to judge his guilt or innocence in another similar case would CAUSE people to believe.

Remaining silent about things that matter is not being HONEST- Denying people the chance to get all the information possible about a person who is charged with a crime, does no one any good- except for those who DO have something to hide.

It's not as simple as you want to believe-

Offenders need to be able to make a life, but they can't escape their past- any more than their victims can- THAT is only "just".

peace,
blu

[JVS]

211. So prejudice is ok when it's done to someone who did something bad earlier?

[ends_dont_justify]

212. the need for a rapist to rape isn't like the common cold, it doesn't just go away in time

If you're dealing with a rapist chances are they're not going to magically decide to never want to rape people again. This is a case he really should have been guilty until proven innocent.

[JVS]

215. Your argument contradicts your username

[Raskolnik]

217. "he really should have been guilty until proven innocent"!?

Holy shit.

Please, please, please tell me you will never serve on a jury.

[Bluerthanblue]

222. any knowledge of a persons

history or activities has the potential to "prejudice" a juror. Hearing that a person who is accused of rape, was previously convicted of rape shouldn't mean that the facts and evidence are moot- But neither should the FACT of the previous conviction be HIDDEN- Swearing to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth, means just that- doesn't it??

You seem to think that the man would be tried and convicted based solely on his past history- Do you also object to a drunk drivers previous record being admissible in a trial? A persons previous convictions for burglary? for arson? for assault and battery? for child ABUSE? for fraud? for shoplifting? for grand theft auto???? and on and on...

Or is this one of those misogynistic craters that still litter society???

This man carries the 'scar' of his past deeds. His victim doesn't get to choose about carrying HER wounds. Actions have consequences. Many of those consequences are life long, and life altering- no special protection should be granted for people who have been convicted of rape.

peace,
blu

[bettyellen]

219. Nope, the jury actually believed this man was quite capable of doing this crime-without knowing his

history no less- and they believed him to be lying in court too...(in fact his story changed completely after he found out about the DNA).
the jury found inconsistancies in the details of the girl;s' story, so as instructed, they did not convict.
look it up in the local paper.

[Raskolnik]

223. Since you're still on this thread, maybe you could provide the relevant S.C. law

that leads you to believe the defendant committed statutory rape. You've repeated that charge numerous times on this thread, but I have yet to see any substantiation.

Thanks in advance.

[bettyellen]

225. my bad, a report i saw specualted he lied about having any sexual contact at all with them at first

because he could be slapped with a stauatory charge. i guess he lied in court because he had no idea about DNA samples proving he did.
ot he just forgot about the hot threeway they had. any of those things...

[Raskolnik]

230. Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

you know why they let him off don't you? they were all living on HIS property soeverybody figures he can do what he want, not anybody's business....he pays the rent. shit, these gals are ungrateful brats who owed him. that's how it works.

Do you have a shred of evidence that leads you to believe this was the jury's reasoning?

[bettyellen]

246. yes, he totally changed his story during the trial- first he said NO contact, then it was a 3-some!

that was in the state. a local SC paper. your welcome. :hi:

[Raskolnik]

253. Yes, we all know that--but you made a statement about *why* jury made its determination

you know why they let him off don't you? they were all living on HIS property soeverybody figures he can do what he want, not anybody's business....he pays the rent. shit, these gals are ungrateful brats who owed him. that's how it works.

Upon what do you base that rationale? Is it anything more than speculation?

[bettyellen]

255. see, i'm pretending that you're replying to my posts. since you're avoiding that! (confused again?)

[Raskolnik]

258. You didn't answer the direct question

I've posted your words. You're not confused, you're trying to avoid the question.

Give it another try, if you would.

[bettyellen]

260. because it's not so long ago that a man could do anything he wanted to his family

or to those he supported on his land- and there's still alot of support for that idea.
especially among the impoverished. if this girl's mom didn;t think hard about allowing her daughter to be living next door to a convicted rapist, then why should the jury, right? they'll peg her whole family as trash and that'll seal it.
the minute i read the social particulars, he is practiacally her step father- i said to myself no one is going to know everything that went on (because it's been going on for years) but more than that, no jury is going to really give a shit about those girls. they are going to think that man put a roof over their heads and he gets points for doing it. he's the boss. you live in his trailer, you put up with his shit.

[Raskolnik]

262. So it was all generalization and supposition?

Good to know. Thank you for answering.

[bettyellen]

271. wow, you couldn't tell that from reading it? good to know. thank YOU for that.

[Raskolnik]

277. What question?

If you hadn't noticed, I'm fielding questions from three of you here--if you would be so kind as to point out the question, I would be happy to try an answer it.

[bettyellen]

280. You need to practice responding to the posts you are referring to- still haven't figured that out?

or are you faking it so you can ignore certain posts? LOL. i just don;t get why you're so confused.
hard to tell, but either way, getting to be a total waste of time for me.

[uppityperson]

76. Jurys have to follow many rules, judges orders on how to look at evidence they heard/saw

Sometimes a prosecutor cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes a jury can think someone is guilty/not guilty yet have to say the other way based on the rules they must follow. Jury trials, our courts, do not always work right.

[Raskolnik]

154. But if the prosecution can't prove its case within the rules of evidence, and the jury aquits

The system is working precisely as it should.

[uppityperson]

158. No. A lot depends on the lawyers and the judge and how they present, instruct jury.

No, jury trials, our courts, do not always work right. Better than nothing, but no, they do not always work as they should. Things can be repressed, not be able to be told, evidence can be presented in slanted ways, judges can instruct jurors in ways that have little to do with prosecutions proving its case. No, the system does not always work precisely as it should.

[Raskolnik]

160. No, they don't "always work right", but if the prosecution can't prove its case

while following the rules of evidence, then an acquittal is proper, no matter the popular opinion of the defendant.

Sometimes those rule mean suppressing improperly obtained evidence, excluding evidence of prior convictions, or limiting the ways in which the prosecution can use certain evidence. The public at large doesn't always appreciate a defendant commonly accepted as "guilty" going free, but the rule of law is far preferable to the alternative.

[uppityperson]

161. I also object to not guilty people being found guilty/sentenced, based on slanted trial.

I think we both agree, it is better than nothing, the alternative.

[Raskolnik]

162. What is a "slanted" trial? n/t

[uppityperson]

164. I grew up middle america, thinking that jury trials, courts, were Right, best way to determine

guilt or innocence. Let the evidence speak for itself! Thank you Perry Mason. In reality, that doesn't happen quite often. What evidence is given, how it is given, who can afford to pay a lot more than another who gets an over worked public defender/prosecutor, all of these slant trials. Most trials are slanted. What the jury decides on is what the Judge tells them to look at and how to decide, and what has been presented and how.

It is better than nothing, but trials are slanted.

[Raskolnik]

165. That didn't clear it up at all.

What the jury decides on is what the Judge tells them to look at and how to decide, and what has been presented and how.

Um, yeah. You've pretty much described how a criminal trial operates. Why is that a bad thing?

Yes, some lawyers are much better than others, just as some judges are better than others, and just as some juries are better than others.

Is this what you mean by "slanted?"

[uppityperson]

168. Before I spend more time here, I need to find out something, if you would.

Is there ever a wrong outcome to a trial? Is anyone ever falsely convicted or not convicted? Thank you.

[Raskolnik]

172. Yes, there are "wrong outcomes"

Sometimes people are convicted using improper evidence. Sometimes juries ignore or give undue weight to evidence. Sometimes trial counsel does not provide Constitutionally adequate representation. Sometimes the judge or prosecution behaves improperly.

Now, back to your original point: why is it a bad outcome for a jury to acquit a defendant whom the prosecution has failed to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt within the rules of evidence?

[uppityperson]

173. Here is why. I consider a wrong outcome a bad outcome. Here is more...

Sometimes people are convicted using improper evidence. Sometimes juries ignore or give undue weight to evidence. Sometimes trial counsel does not provide Constitutionally adequate representation. Sometimes the judge or prosecution behaves improperly.

[Raskolnik]

176. You're talking in circles.

Defining a "wrong outcome" as a "bad outcome" is not terribly useful.

[JVS]

82. Gotta read the article first, but WHO IS THIS GUY'S LAWYER?

Just hearing the charges makes me think that the guy would have been put under the jail. This lawyer must be good.

[NashVegas]

96. I Went Searching for Other Articles

And couldn't find any mention of evidence, except DNA samples. No mention of evidence they forced their way out of the room, signs of a struggle in their own home, etc.

[bettyellen]

102. there was duck tape, but the police got no prints off of it.

[Tempest]

114. Where are you getting your information?

Provide the cite for evidence on the case, would you?

[bettyellen]

121. gosh, ya think i'm making it up? cause us gals do shit like that....... LOL!

"Evans noted she had said in her cross-examination that Hinson initially said he had not touched the girls and changed his story to include consensual sex after prosecutors shared DNA test results that showed he had sexual contact with the girls.

Also, she said, “I didn’t want to give him a chance to go through those false, disgusting details again.”

Both girls lived in a trailer a few feet from one occupied by Hinson, which he shared with his girlfriend, who was the mother of one of the girls, and the girlfriend’s teenage son.

.....

Hinson testified he had a consensual three-way sexual encounter with the girls the day before. Hinson’s lawyer, Rick Hoefer of Florence, said the girls concocted a hoax to put Hinson behind bars so he could not retaliate for their theft of the marijuana, for which Hinson paid about $3,200.

Even though they didn’t believe the girls’ story, jurors still weren’t won over by Hinson’s story either, Williams said.

“His story was a little too perfect. He had a whole year to make a story to fit the facts.”..........
.

When Hinson was arrested March 17, 2006, he was carrying a 9 mm automatic pistol with three bullets. Hinson testified during his rape trial that he carried the gun.

Hinson spent nine years in prison for raping a 12-year-old girl at knife-point in a van. He was released in 2000 despite protests by prosecutors."



"Hinson described in detail a trip to a sex shop with one of his accusers to purchase a sexual device about a week before the alleged crimes and he identified the device in court.

Hinson said he went to bed shortly after his sexual encounter with the two and expected them to help him paint apartments the next morning."


http://www.thestate.com

[Tempest]

123. When it comes to drugs, woman and men make up stories

I suppose you'll next tell me women never trade sex for drugs. :eyes:

[bettyellen]

124. thanks for AGREEING HE LIED!! any fool could have seen it.

[Tempest]

206. I came to no such agreement

You completely missed the point of my post. Can't say I'm surprised.

[bettyellen]

220. when confronted with evidence of his lies, your response is "women lie also" LOL, I got your #!

Point? I think you meant to say you weee rubber and I...

[ends_dont_justify]

213. wow...learn to spell

it doesn't add credibility to your pro-rapist stance.

[Raskolnik]

218. Yours is a silly post.

Could you please point out the "pro-rapist stance" to which you refer?

[Name removed]

110. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

112. Seems like a real charming guy.

:eyes:

[Tempest]

115. Man freed after serving 25 years for a rape he didn't commit

Jerry Miller (center) had spent 25 years in prison for rape, but thanks to the persistence of the Innocence Project, a New York-based group that uses DNA to clear people wrongly convicted of crimes, he was formally exonerated of rape, robbery, aggravated battery and aggravated kidnapping and was made a free man at a court hearing Monday.


But some here would still claim he's guilty.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

138. You WANT women to be raped, don't you?!?!!!11!!

Don't deny it!!1!!

:sarcasm:

[TahitiNut]

166. "But some here would still claim he's guilty."

Yep. Funny how they show up when called, huh?

[Tempest]

204. I don't find it funny at all, to tell you the truth

I find it scary because they might be placed on a jury in a case like this, would ignore the evidence and vote to convict because of their already determined bias.

[ends_dont_justify]

214. If you don't think plenty of juries already exist that way in any trial...

Then I certainly hope you never have to deal with the legal system. Your average everyday freep could just as easily be called in for jury duty.

[Tempest]

216. I wouldn't expect it from people here though

Reading some of the posts here indicate even progressives can have closed off minds and an inability to be objective.

Takes all kinds I guess.

[bettyellen]

221. actually my opinion was formed after reading lots about it. but thanks for prejudging me. LOL

ironic.

[Luna_C_06]

167. WTF?

Sometimes I think the world really hates us women.....:(

[Raskolnik]

169. Why does this jury's verdict point to a hatred of women?

Isn't it also possible that the evidence against the defendant just wasn't sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

[pinto]

174. A word here about personal attacks, civility and respect:

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Thanks.

[bettyellen]

175. well please delete my post above defending myself against disgusting lies

as long as you also delete the disgusting lie too.

[pinto]

180. As always, we encourage members to alert on inappropriate posts for follow up,

and we expect all members to help maintain the civil discourse guidelines outlined in the membership rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Questions about these guidelines, or comments on moderator activity are best addressed to one of our Administrators:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

Thanks.

[Luna_C_06]

182. That wasn't directed at anyone one this board.

After reading the news and reading about FGM I'm having a bad day I guess, didn't mean to offend, sorry.


On edit:
I should explain my first post. My closest friend of 10 years (we have known each other since jr. high) just had a baby. Labor was pretty scary for her and she had a lot of complications. She had to have a c-section and is still recuperating. About 9 months before that she was at a party and some guy made her a drink and she passed out. When she woke up he was on top of her.....you can probably guess what happened. So rape is a bit of a sore spot for me. She never told anyone but me and her boyfriend (who showed up drunk more than once while she was in the hospital for almost a week :eyes:).

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

188. Who here has refused to admit the existence of rape?

Could you please provide the either the number or content of the post, or the name of the poster.

What posts on this thread do find objectionable?

[LisaL]

185. The jury was not told about his previous conviction for rape.

They were only told he was convicted of a felony, but not what felony it was.
I imagine that could have played a role. But he is not going anywhere, he is being held on federal charge because he had a gun even though he is a felon.

[Raskolnik]

189. Do you think they should have been told?

Do you that type of prior crime evidence should be used to convict?

[LisaL]

190. Yes, I think they should have been told.

However that is considered to be too prejudicial to the defendant.
My feeling is-jury should know all there is to know to make an informed decision.

[Raskolnik]

191. Couldn't disagree more.

If the state can't present evidence sufficient to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without resorting to "he did something like this before, so he must have done it this time" they just don't have enough to convict.

[LisaL]

192. Prosecutors seem totally flabbergasted by this.

They think they had more then enough evidence.
As for you disagreeing, you are entitled to disagree. I personally believe the jurors should have all the information in front of them to make an informed decision.

[Raskolnik]

193. But that's just the thing--certain information actually prevents a rational & informed decision

We keep all kinds of information away from juries in criminal trials based on the fact that certain evidence does very little shed light on the particular case, but does inflame passions and serve as a substitute for actual evidence of the crime charged.

[LisaL]

200. And I've already I said I personally do not agree with

keeping so much information from the jury-in this or any other case.

[TheGriz]

194. Why wasn't he still in jail for raping the 12 year old?

That seems far more relevant to me actually.

He should never have been let out of prison after his first offense, simple as that.

[TahitiNut]

195. "He should never have been let out of prison after his first offense"??

Life imprisonment for rape? Well, I guess that's a sure way to motivate rapists to murder their victims. After all, what do they have to lose? I guess some people might agree, though.
:shrug:

[TheGriz]

197. Perhaps it would help discourage rape in the first place?

I doubt either of our assertions (that it will discourage rape or increase the risk of the attacker murdering the victim) are accurate, however I do believe that the number of violent rapes would go down; this particular case is a perfect example of that. This man wouldn't have ever come into contact with these girls if he was still in prison.

We are talking about a criminal who is almost certain to reoffend. Rapists and pedophiles are driven to commit these crimes, and that won't change after a few years in jail. Releasing them without actual physical restraints (beyond registries and unenforced parole conditions) is completely irresponsible.

[Tempest]

205. You mean like how the death penalty has discouraged murder?

It's a proven fact that tougher laws don't stop or deter people's behavior.

[TheGriz]

267. Thats what I said in my post.

"I doubt either of our assertions are correct"

[Proud2BAmurkin]

224. Sometimes people lie about rape, the person isn't always guilty

thought that was a well known fact.

[WildEyedLiberal]

226. What website am I on again?

Oh yeah, Democratic Underground. Sorry, after all the vociferous defenses of 50 year old pedophiles who physically restrain minors in order to force sex on them, I thought I must have ended up at Free Republic by mistake. WHoops!

Or maybe I should just stop expecting "liberals" to defend women more than conservatives.

[Raskolnik]

227. That's cute.

The vociferous defense you're seeing isn't for an individual, its for the rule of law to prevail over mob actions.

[bettyellen]

228. so why exactly is it okay to mention prior burglaries, or shootings, etc, but not rapes in court?

what was your justification for giving rapists a better deal in court than other defendants with prior convictions?
i saw you asked and "forgot" to reply?
why the rape exception, again?

[WildEyedLiberal]

231. Because those trashy girls are probably just making it up to get attention

Even though only around 1% of rapes reported to the police are later proven to be false report, there is a sizable contingent of people who are ALWAYS willing to assume that the woman is some vindictive/scorned/attention-seeking/unbalanced harpy bent on ruining the lives of poor innocent 50 year old crack dealing former pedophiles.

:sarcasm: obviously

[Raskolnik]

236. Actually, I was surprised when I read the story about the verdict.

I had casually skimmed the articles about the trial prior to the verdict, and was quite surprised when I found out he was acquitted. I had no reason to think the two girls were lying, much less "vindictive/scorned/attention-seeking/unbalanced harpies".

I know this may seem hard to believe (stay with me here) but its possible the stories leading up to the trial were not entirely accurate or fair to the defendant.

Who woulda' thunkit, huh? The media might choose to sensationalize certain aspects of a pending criminal case and not give an entirely accurate portrayal of the facts. Hard to believe, isn't it?

[bettyellen]

240. has nothing to do with my post, so thanks for nothing.

[Raskolnik]

241. You made an implication. I addressed that implication. You're welcome. n/t

[bettyellen]

244. no, i asked a very specific question, to which it seems you don;t have a clear answer yourself.

doesn't seem you can explain the babis for this "undue" business. you'r just parroting stuff.
but thanks!

[Raskolnik]

248. I believe we're both mixed up on which posts we're replying to.

Please point out which question you feel I'm not addressing to your satisfaction.

[bettyellen]

252. actually in two places, it's just you that's confused. upthread you respond by asking about a

post that is no where near the one you resonded to. you should find the post you want to respond to and reply to it.
so, as i asked why is rape unduely predudicial? this is a judges call, isn't it? it's a value judgement they are projecting on to jurors where obviously (just look around this thread) there will be no uniform reaction. some people will react "poor railroaded man" to the news of a prior conviction. the evidence of that is all over this thread. it maybe the law, but it is discrimininatory.

[Raskolnik]

256. "discriminatory" against whom?

I've explained why evidence of this type isn't generally admissible at a criminal trial. If you aren't convinced by that, then I would suggest you do some outside research to learn about the roots of the doctrine.

Again I'll ask: what questions have I not answered to your satisfaction? Point them out and I'll gladly take a swing.

[bettyellen]

272. vivtims of certain types of crimes are put at a disadvanatge by this.

i would have thought that was obvious. but i guess not.
:hi:
c ya

[Bluerthanblue]

232. THANK you Bettyellen, I hope you'll get an answer to this

puzzle.

I just read that Ireland has rules that say the two instances where previous conviction ARE CLEARLY admissible are rape and theft- the reasoning cited was that both crimes have a heavy bearing on a persons character-

peace,
blu

[WildEyedLiberal]

234. Not to mention that sexual predators have an EXTREMELY high rate of recidivism

Ask ANY law enforcement expert - sexual offenders are extremely unlikely to reform and are more likely than any other type of criminal to offend again.

ESPECIALLY pedophiles, which this man clearly was since he was convicted of raping a 12 year old child. His prior history is absolutely relevant.

[bettyellen]

245. from what i understand it's up to the judges discretion- and as i said individual jurors will/ won;t

have hot button issues. if they didn;t select a juror who can stay rational for the duration of the trial, that's a problem... but the jurors should not be sheilded from the truth.

[Raskolnik]

233. Um, its not an exception for rape. That's the way criminal trials work.

As a general rule, you are allowed to mention when a defendant has a prior felony conviction, but usually are prevented from naming the actual felonious act. If a defendant takes the stand, however, often those crimes will be admissible, providing the judge does not find they would be unduly prejudicial.

Does that help?

And to which post are you referring that I "forgot" to reply? I'll happily go back and rectify, as I feel quite confident in my position and have no reason to duck any questions.

[Bluerthanblue]

237. Mr. Hinson took the stand, would the DA have been allowed to

ask him questions about his history???

[Raskolnik]

239. Well, I'm not in South Carolina, but...

in most jurisdictions, you can impeach a witness with their criminal history, UNLESS that witness is the defendant AND that criminal history would be so prejudicial as to outweigh its probative value. In those instances, the prosecutor is usually allowed to bring up a felony conviction without mentioning the specific crime.

[bettyellen]

243. i ahad read of cases where other crimes were mentioned. why THIS crime?

i have seen where robberies were allowed- why isn;t that undue? it makes no sense to draw this distinction- it's going to be different for every juror. it would be interesting to see what falls into the category or unduly preducdical. is it types of crimes or does it have to do with a recurrence of the same crime?.

[Raskolnik]

251. Because experience has demonstrated that it is nearly impossible

for a jury to return an objective verdict when this type of prior crime is brought to their attention. You would agree that a past conviction for a sex offense does not carry the same connotations for a jury as a prior conviction for burglary or drug possession, wouldn't you?

Granted, the evidence may be more relevant if it was being used to establish modus operandi (i.e. if his alleged methods were strikingly similar to his methods in his prior case), which is sometimes why prior crime evidence is admissible. That's not the situation here, however.

Some individuals may indeed be able to retain their impartiality when faced with evidence of this type, but juries as a whole cannot be relied upon to do so. People aren't computers, and as much as someone might swear to uphold their oath and only consider evidence in the instant case when determining whether the state has met their burden, experience has shown that it just isn't reasonable to expect twelve people to disregard such emotionally charged information.

[bettyellen]

254. based on the reactions on this thread, not at all. most are willing to give him the benefit

the jury hated him- without hearing about the child rape- they believe it's likely he did it or was quite capable. they KNEW he lied, and believed he concocted the drug thft tale. they had problems with the forensics, and so did not convict.
the fact that judges would say that rape is an exception to me is as bullshit. it's mock protectionism a la the supreme court thinking i don;t understand what an abortion is... if they had a history of violence, i;d be more prone to believe repeated violence, theft for theft, rape for rape. because history does repeat itself. nthing emotional about it. they do present all sorts of info about the person's history, it wold be more accurate and less biased if didn;t try to play nanny with some crimes and not others.
they don;t need to, look at all the guys here who give him a pass- not one has mentioned HIS lies on the stand- but they insinuate the gals did. they'd be in his favor on a jury with the knowledge of priors. so there you go.

[Raskolnik]

263. if they had a history of violence, i'd be more prone to believe repeated violence..."

theft for theft, rape for rape

And that, madam, demonstrates quite nicely why evidence of this kind is not generally admissible in a criminal trial.

[Bluerthanblue]

274. WHY????? does a persons history only count when it isn't a mans penis???????

You use prior history on other crimes!!

why does this SINGLE crime (one which the offender is more often than not male and the victims are again most often women, children or others who have less power) merit such PROTECTED ....SPECIAL...status???

Can you sincerly defend this inequality???? In all good conscience??????

[Raskolnik]

279. Its not unique to rape cases at all. Who told you it was?

If a prior conviction is more prejudicial than probative, it generally doesn't come in. It works that way in murder cases, assault cases, sexual assault cases, etc.

Does that help?

[Bluerthanblue]

286. isn't the prohibition about "previous convictions" automatically

in place on rape cases- sexual assault cases-?

And is it really all that .....outrageous ? to factor in a persons past behaviours? Why do we allow people to bring in the "positives" about their life- Say for example a person is a very "civic minded" individual- someone who has much respect in a community- if they are standing trial for something that puts their character in question, pointing to the "positives" alters the perception that their "judges" will have of them- so SHOULD the wrong things they have done in life- The silence and secrecy that surrounds rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse has been one of the reasons that these crimes against humanity have flourished and continued - for a LONG time without any real acknowledgment or true attempt to stop them-

This is a topic that is particularly important to me. I don't like people being wrongly accused and sometimes wrongly convicted. But I also believe it is vital to take an honest, critical look at how and why this life altering crime continues to grow and flourish- And to question the way we address the epidemic of violence against the most vulnerable- from prison rape to infant rape.

For the children we all were- for the children that are- and will be- we need to find a way to fight the vicious cycle that is destroying us.

peace,
blu

[Raskolnik]

297. No, not really "automatically"

As a general proposition, a prior conviction for a sex crime isn't going to be mentioned to the jury. There are kinds of exceptions, however, that would lead to its admittance.

If the defense opens the door and tries to portray the defendant as a pillar of virtue (by bringing in the "positives" about their life, for example) then the prior conviction will most often be presented to the jury. If the prior crime demonstrates a pattern or unique methodology, then its probably going to get in.

Does that help?

[bettyellen]

283. and based on the reaction in this thread- many feel different. all of a sudden you claim everyone

thinks like me. LOL! good one. Obviously many on this thread give him the benefit of the doubt knowing he raped a child. Please explain how that jibe. the jury itself was prejudiced, believed he was very capable of this crime and was certain he lied- yet they didn;t convict him at all.
where is all this prejudice? i think he might be guilty (note well, that's the SAME CONCLUSION AS THE JURY ) based on his reversal of testimony. so there are three places where you'd like to assume prejudice would effect someone's judgment and it's just not there.
there's no Valois reason to hide facts from the jury. they decided on the evidence, as the were asked to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

229. Yeah, it just always happens to be for individuals accused of raping women

EVERY single thread about rape has a significant number of people who apparently believe that the man accused must be innocent and the woman must be lying. What's cute is the fact that you're pretending that misogyny has nothing to do with it. I've seen several insinuations that the girls were lying or making things up, which is the STANDARD misogynist defense for rape. You do realize that, of rapes that are actually reported to the police (which is something like 5-10% of all total rapes), around 1% of THOSE are false reports? So there's a 99% chance that the women aren't making up some hysterical lie just to railroad some poor, innocent, 50 year old former pedophile.

Give me a fucking break.

[Bluerthanblue]

235. and thank YOU- WildEyedLiberal for making good sense of

why it is so offensive for people to jump on the "they are making it up" bandwagon.

You put it into words very well-

peace,
blu

(expecting the girls to have screamed when he abducted them, and having undue expectations on how long it took for the girls to notify the police seem like "prejudice" to me- how would the jurors know what was "normal" if they'd never experienced rape/sexual assault?)

[Raskolnik]

238. So if the overwhelming bulk of defendants are guilty, why bother with the trial at all?

Do you think that remaining 1% deserves the process of a fair trial at which the state is obliged to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

I do. Its that simple.

[WildEyedLiberal]

242. So does a "fair trial" include insinuating that the victims are lying?

Simply because they are young females? Is that your idea of a fair trial?

In EVERY SINGLE THREAD about a rape case on DU, there are people claiming that the perp is innocent and that the victims are lying. If you believed those people, you'd think that women lie about being raped more than 50% of the time and so there is a very good reason to automatically discount their testimonies, which is exactly what is happening in this thread. EXACTLY.

Here are the FACTS you care so much about: He had sex with those girls. There is DNA proof. They were physically restrained. He denied ever touching them until DNA evidence provided conclusive proof to the contrary. THEN he said that "they wanted it." To acquit this asshole basically comes down to IGNORING the women's testimony, IGNORING the physical evidence, and BELIEVING the word of a convicted pedophile that two 17 year old girls WANTED to be tied up and fucked in his dungeon.

And if you don't believe that juries have ever returned an unjust verdict, let me just say: :rofl:

Wrongful verdicts aren't limited to evil prosecutors railroading innocent defendents. Sometimes, evil sons of bitches get off scot free, and guess what? It's usually in cases where the defendent is a member of a more privileged social class than the accuser - whether the social class in question be race, gender, or sexual identity.

[Raskolnik]

247. The defense in every criminal case insinuates the victims are lying/mistaken/not credible

And if the accuser(s) allegations hold up under cross examination, then of course its wrong to ignore the testimony. If the allegations cannot withstand cross examination and a rebuttal case from the defense, do you think the jury should nevertheless continue to assume the testimony is credible?

Let's make some things clear, just to disabuse you of the notion that I am completely unfamiliar with the criminal justice system: Sometimes guilty people go free, and go on to hurt other people. Often times sex cases are incredibly awful experiences for the victims, and far too often women's credible accusations of sexual assault lead to no prosecution. Those are all tragedies. Tragedies, however, that are not remedied by subverting the rule of law in a criminal prosecution.

I don't know enough about this case to know whether I would have reached the same conclusion had I been on the jury, but I sure as hell know that I am adamantly opposed to lowering the bar for conviction or relaxing the standards of evidence because the case involves a sexual assault and/or the defendant has a prior criminal history. Do you disagree?

[Bluerthanblue]

257. If I can interupt, you say you don't want the 'bar lowered' but

WHY pray tell, is the bar higher on sexual assault cases? It is automaticly HIGHER because certain evidence/facts are kept secret from the jury- facts that in other types of crimes are not only mentioned, but have impact on the severity of the 'charge'- ie. DWI second offense- habitual offender has higher penalties-

It is particularly difficult for victims of sexual assault to come forward and be willing to go to trial- This case only serves to make sure that it stays that way.

Can you understand the point I'm trying to make?

[Raskolnik]

294. I certainly understand the inherent difficulties in prosecuting sex crimes.

I've seen firsthand how vicious and traumatic sex crime prosecutions can be. I've seen women to whom awful, unspeakable things have happened being subjected to cross-examinations that made me cringe. But, you know what? I've also seen people accused of crimes that they did not commit. Victims can be mistaken, prosecutors can make mistakes, and the initial impressions of a case can be very misleading. That's the purpose of the trial, and that's why victims' testimony *has to* be able to withstand a vigorous testing to justify a conviction. I agree that its often heartbreaking when a victim has to go through a second trauma at the trial, but when people's liberty is at stake, it is absolutely necessary.

And, I believe you're confusing the role of prior offenses being used in other cases. If a prior crime increases the penalty, then it is generally brought in for the *sentencing* phase of the trial, not the guilt phase. Again, the prior crime doctrine IS NOT unique to rape cases: if a prior conviction is more prejudicial than probative, it doesn't come in, no matter what type of case is at isssue.

Does that help?

[bettyellen]

298. "more prejudicial than probative" - is what you refuse to address...

because you support the status quo.

[Raskolnik]

300. I don't believe you really understand what "more prejudicial than probative" means

You don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion about this, but it would help if you at least understood the basics of how the doctrine works.

[bettyellen]

301. good excuse to avoid discussing it! thanks for proving you ain;t up for a real discussion.

[Raskolnik]

302. I've tried to explain it before, but I'll give it one more try just for you Betty

The standard of judging whether evidence is more is more prejudicial than probative is just basic evidence theory: if the piece of evidence tends to dramatically decrease a finder of fact's ability to make an impartial decision based on the evidence, then it generally doesn't get presented to the jury. That applies to prior convictions, the circumstances of a particular crime, something in the defendant's/victim's personal history, etc.

The purpose of the trial is to make a determination based on the admissible evidence, not on emotion or vengeance. It doesn't always work out that way, of course, but introducing inflammatory evidence that reduces a jury's ability to objectively judge the facts of a particular case isn't the answer the flaws of the criminal justice system.

[bettyellen]

303. yuo assume since someone diasagrees with this they don;t understand it. that's unfounded, and your

own opinion aside, what is inflammatory or not is a value judgement that is never going to apply equally to all jurors. the fact of this man's priors was not predudicail to many people here and his general scuzzbucketness didn;t predudice the jury in this case either... you've had no comment on that though.
the jury ruled according to evidence- which is how it should be. by it's very nature this inflammatory BS discriminates against women who have been victims of sex crimes. they are less likely to have the evidence of priors introduced than say burglary victims. we both know this. i'm not going to insult you by assuming you don;t understand just because you don;t sgree with me (so do me the same courtesy) you just don;t agree that it needs to be remedied.

[Raskolnik]

304. Not based on disagreement. Based on the substance of your posts.

There are plenty of people who make compelling arguments for maintaining a separate evidentiary standard for sex crimes*. I disagree for a a variety of reasons, but it is entirely possible to both disagree with my position and be quite knowledgeable. I do not believe you fit in this category, however.

*In the federal system, for example, under Rule 413, a defendant's prior offense evidence *is* admissible as a general rule (provided, of course, that it is not more prejudicial than probative) in response to the valid concerns over the propensity of sex offenders to commit more and similar crimes.

[bettyellen]

305. well you avoid the issues raised time and again so...your opinion isn't of much value or interest

you have the rovian reaction to avoid what you can't address. :shrug:
i gave it one last chance, but you see what you want to see, and talk about that- it's verbal masturbation at this point- nothing more.
later.

[Raskolnik]

306. Yes, the way I avoided your questions by answering them directly.

Its been a pleasure.

[WildEyedLiberal]

265. And when the defendent's story doesn't hold up?

This man told a complete LIE to the police and only changed his story when DNA evidence caught him, effectively, with his pants down. Does it not matter to you that he was already a proven liar and had changed his story?

The only justification one could give for delivering a not guilty verdict is believing the word of a proven liar and pedophile over the physical DNA evidence and the testimony of the girls. And if their stories changed... is it not more plausible to assume that, in the aftermath of being raped, they might have had fuzzy or inaccurate memories of the exact sequence of events? Contrast this to the man who DENIED TOUCHING THEM and then, when proven a liar by DNA, claimed that they "wanted it." It's perfectly plausible that a rape VICTIM could be unclear on the specific details, but for a man to completely "forget" that he had had sex with these women and only "remember" it when confronted with DNA? I am sorry but no one with two brain cells to rub together should have returned a not guilty verdict in this trial.

[Raskolnik]

278. If everyone is lying (which trust me, is not unusual in a criminal case)

Then the jury does have to sort out who's story is closer to the truth. If the prosecution doesn't have compelling evidence to overcome the jury's doubts about the victim's story, then a not guilty verdict is appropriate.

[bettyellen]

281. except the defendants lies are proven, the accusation against the gals comes from this liar

so some of us do not see this as "all things being equal". so far we have, he definately lied, and he says the gals did.

[bettyellen]

284. well no, jurors were quoted saying they did not believe the defendants story at all.

reasonable doubts abound, and they can't just pick a side to believe. that's not how it works.

[Bluerthanblue]

275. Sure would appreciate an answer to my question to you Raskolnik-

thanks

[bettyellen]

282. LOL, goodluck Blue....

[Raskolnik]

287. Do you have an unanswered question?

If so, let's hear it.

[bettyellen]

289. many, but you seem unable to navigate the thread. as i said, a waste of time, truly is what you

have turned out to be.

[Raskolnik]

291. In other words: no, but you want to still make insinuations.

Bettyellen, I don't want to be overly harsh, but you really don't seem very knowledgeable about how the criminal justice system works, or how evidence is presented in a criminal trial.

Do you have any experience at all in these matters? Its fairly difficult to have to explain the basics of evidence to you and argue about it at the same time, so if you could bring a little more to the table than attacks and speculation, it would certainly make things progress more easily.

[bettyellen]

296. you seem very pleased with how the system works. NEWSFLASH: many others are not...

i know you're a bit thick, so I thought I'd restate it for you. One last time.

Now, unless you actually go back and try and reply to the many many posts (and not just mine) you've so far avoided answering , (and find them yourself, lazy bones, i an't your assistant) ) i got nothing to say to you.
and it ain't about winning, sorry for you if you think so. very sorry for your mindset. and grossed ou, see ya!
:hi:

[Raskolnik]

299. I'm not at all pleased with the criminal justice sytem as a whole

I would suggest you take some time, learn something about the actual workings of the criminal justice system functions and how a typical trial proceeds. It will make future conversations like this more productive.

[Raskolnik]

285. If you would point out which question has been unanswered

I'd be happy to give it a try.

Thanks.

[Bluerthanblue]

288. sure, it's here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=733680&mesg_id=756925


I think we've about danced this one through though-
thanks

[bettyellen]

290. Look! he replied to me instead, Blue! LOL... poor fella can't find his way outta a paper bag i guess

steadfastly replying to posts other than the one he hit the reply to seems to be his MO. i guess you can print the whole thread and draw dotted lines to follow WTF he's going with it. or you can conclude it's BS, and a waste of time. obtuse, perhaps deliberately, but who cares?

[Raskolnik]

292. Oh, Bettyellen. Are you under the impression you're winning this argument?

So far in this discussion, you've been wrong about nearly every substantive issue on which you've posted.

[bettyellen]

293. ? again... nothing to do about nothing. nice record you have there, bud! truly LOST here, aint ya?

[Raskolnik]

295. That wasn't a comprehensible sentence. Please try again.

[bettyellen]

307. why are you avoiding answering Blue? Scared of addressing her concerns?

scared of intellectual honesty instead of these veiled insults you pretend are arguments?
go for it, answer her, or put a sock in it.

[Raskolnik]

308. Oh for Jeebus sake, Bettyellen, there's little need for nonsense like this.

If you have a question, ask it.

If all you have to offer is silliness like this, then I suggest refraining from hitting the little "reply" button on others' posts.

[bettyellen]

309. *crickets* i pretty much knew you wouldn't answer either one of us...

and sweetie, before you shoot off your mouth, why don;t you go down this thread and count how many times you have replied to other's posts..... and add that to the number where you replied without addressing at all the content of the posts... then we can talk about what's silly and what actually avoiding an honest conversation. you do nothing but play little games. if you think that's winning, well good luck to you, because others weren't even playing. as i said before you may as well be whacking off for all the interaction you're doing here.

[Raskolnik]

310. So once again, you can't actually provide the question at issue.

Thanks, sweetie.

[bettyellen]

311. won't provide it, you lazy ass. LOL.

it's too much fun watching you be deliberately obtuse. i keep thinking it'll get old, but it just doesn't.
:hi:

[Raskolnik]

312. Oh. its a *secret*.

I can understand why you'd want to criticize someone for not answering a question, but not actually refer to question at issue.

That makes sense.

Seriously, Betty. Is this all you have to offer the discussion at this point? If so, we should probably say our farewells...

[bettyellen]

314. you can practice with a paper bag.. find your way round it- argue your way out

and when your done, perhaps you could actually come back here and apply those lessons- and LOOK FOR YOURSELF... for the things you repeatedly and pointedly ignored in the past. There's nothing secret about it.
speaking of ignore...

[Raskolnik]

317. Please refer to post #316, and get back to me if you still think there is an issue.

If you continue to maintain I am dodging questions, I would suggest either putting up or shutting up.

(edit typo)

[bettyellen]

319. Keep looking, LOL... the exercise will do you good.

[Raskolnik]

320. Please refer to post #316, and either put up or shut up.

We haven't discussed the actual issue for about a dozen posts, so this will be my last in this thread unless you have either something substantive to add or a question to ask.

(And if you merely make another generic "LOL" post that contains no actual information, but merely makes insinuations without providing any substantiation whatsoever, I'll take it as given that you concede you have nothing else to add to the discussion. Thanks.)

[bettyellen]

321. what an angry and lost little poster

can't seem to find his way, boo hoo.

[bettyellen]

313. Poor fella! He's explained to me just now- he CAN"T FIND YOUR QUESTION!! LOL!!

awww. i feel so sorry, he's lost again.

[Raskolnik]

316. Wait a second, are you talking about these posts?

In post #257, Bluerthanblue posted:

If I can interupt, you say you don't want the 'bar lowered' but

WHY pray tell, is the bar higher on sexual assault cases? It is automaticly HIGHER because certain evidence/facts are kept secret from the jury- facts that in other types of crimes are not only mentioned, but have impact on the severity of the 'charge'- ie. DWI second offense- habitual offender has higher penalties-

It is particularly difficult for victims of sexual assault to come forward and be willing to go to trial- This case only serves to make sure that it stays that way.

Can you understand the point I'm trying to make?

In post #284, she requested a response, and in post #288 provided a link to the question at issue.

In post #294, I responded to the question at issue with the following:

I certainly understand the inherent difficulties in prosecuting sex crimes.

I've seen firsthand how vicious and traumatic sex crime prosecutions can be. I've seen women to whom awful, unspeakable things have happened being subjected to cross-examinations that made me cringe. But, you know what? I've also seen people accused of crimes that they did not commit. Victims can be mistaken, prosecutors can make mistakes, and the initial impressions of a case can be very misleading. That's the purpose of the trial, and that's why victims' testimony *has to* be able to withstand a vigorous testing to justify a conviction. I agree that its often heartbreaking when a victim has to go through a second trauma at the trial, but when people's liberty is at stake, it is absolutely necessary.

And, I believe you're confusing the role of prior offenses being used in other cases. If a prior crime increases the penalty, then it is generally brought in for the *sentencing* phase of the trial, not the guilt phase. Again, the prior crime doctrine IS NOT unique to rape cases: if a prior conviction is more prejudicial than probative, it doesn't come in, no matter what type of case is at isssue.

Bluethanblue has not, at this point, made a response to that post.

[Raskolnik]

318. And thank you for being gracious enough to admit your error.

I appreciate you acknowledging your error and retracting the numerous posts you made based on your mistake.

[LisaL]

250. Well, I sincerely doubt this defendant was of a "privileged class,"

WTF that means. Not knowing all the details of the case, it's hard to figure out why the jury did what they did-but in this case it clearly wasn't because the defendant was "privileged."

[Bluerthanblue]

261. he is MALE- and like it or not

our laws, our societial 'norms' our court systems and our religions' are institutions which have thier conception in MALE dominated mentality.

Things have changed somewhat- but not all that much.

[WildEyedLiberal]

264. Exactly. This thread is proof positive that a man's word is apparently worth more than a woman's.

If it had been a white woman accusing a black man, I guarantee there would've been a conviction, especially in North Carolina. But since both victim and defendent were of the same racial and socioeconomic status, the word of the man - even a crack-dealing pedophile - is just *assumed* to be more trustworthy than the word of the women.

Anyone who doesn't believe me can just read this thread for evidence.

[LisaL]

266. It happened in South Carolina.

[bettyellen]

249. since it's a fact THIS DEFENDANT 100% LIED about the incident- so where's the MEN SAYING SO

*crickets*
when i bring it up, the guys pretend i didn't... LOL- i haven't noticed one adress that FACT at all- but they are all happy to SPECULATE about the women. and then accuse me me of bias. sheesh,

[militaryspouse]

268. re

I really hope this doesn't mean this guy is free to roam. Who's going to be his next victim, and will she be believed? I'm sorry, but I saw his picture, and any girl in their right mind would just be too creeped out to sleep with a guy like that.

[Bluerthanblue]

273. his picture doesn't mean anything really- it isn't what he "looks" like

(some very outwardly beautiful people do some horrible things)-

His actions- bragging about having a threesome with two teenage girls- (he admitted having sex with the girls under oath- His DNA was there- he also claimed that they knew about the dungeon and he let them use it to party- he bragged about buying sex toys with them and having one demonstrate it on him ????

He broke the law on several counts- felon in possession- possession of pot- possession of pot AND a concealed weapon (drug/weapons charge) possession with intent to sell- he confessed he was going to take his stash up to NY to sell- The man should not 'be free to roam'- and he shouldn't have his next sentence shortened like he did the conviction for child rape- he served only 9 out of his 19yrs.

[Bluerthanblue]

276. oops! and welcome to DU Militaryspouse!! eom