"Wilding" youths cleared of rape convictions

[miko2d]

midnight Target: Just possible that they were innocent of this crime huh?

 Always possible. After all, we had two human juries consider that case, not God himself. It is supposed to be for a jury to decide, not for any judge if a person is guilty or innocent.

"tainted videotaped confessions"

 Did it become tainted after defence examined those and jury made conclusions based on them? Here is a case for mistrial. No need to wait for Matias Reyes to be caught.

"at the time the jogger was believed to have been attacked, the police also claimed that the teenagers were involved in muggings elsewhere in the park"

 Here is a contradiction right away - how could they be involved in muggings? I mean, if you are involved in one mugging, you cannot be involved in the second one at the same time. So since they were involved in several, they could not have been involved in any one - being elsewhere on another mugging which they could not commit either because of yet another one...

 I wonder why the defence did not point that out to the juries?

 Anyway, I am sure that if they were still in jail - or could sue the city for damages because of unlawfull imprisonment (which they cannot since they cooperated in their own conviction by admitting the guilt, among other reasons), the prosecutors would have gone for another trial. Since they have already served their sentences, prosecutors just decided not to bother and the law be damned...

 They may be innocent - sure. We have the word of two juries against his. The criminals now have a great way to escape punishment - which they would have learned sooner had they read "The Godfather" - desperate criminal assuming the guilt.

 miko

[Pongo]

Miko..your not covering the case very closely...
Attacks that the 5 where known to be at because of the victims testimony made it near imposible to be at the rape of that woman..
Its not like there was varios un identified sperm recovered from the victum. there was only one persons recovered. and that was the man who has now confesed.
There was no physical evidence that multiple people attacked her.

You say there is no new evidence that they are inocent of the rape..but there was never any evidence that they were guilty of it exept their coerced testimony.
Where they guilty of other things..yes they were . But they werent convicted of those things because they would have not been able to be convicted of the rape as the commiting of both crimes was physically impossible.
They did enough time for the swarming attacks. they should not have the rape on their records if they didnt commit it.

its pretty clear to me...

[davidpt40]

I hope you guys realize that there have been thousands of cases of people being imprisoned when they were truely innocent.  

Quite a few cases where white victims have 'postively identified' the black assailents have been erroneous.  Its harder to identify a person of another race than it is to identify someone of your own race.  I can think of one case where a black guy was in prison for 7 years before DNA evidence proved he was innocent.

Do I have confidence in the legal system? Nope- I put my trust in expensive lawyers.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Vulcan
After seeing the Michelle Moore-Bosko story on Discovery I don't see how any US Court can rely on confessions to convict people.

My thoughts too.

Coerced confessions are too easy to get, and police to often use badly flawed methods of getting thos confessions.

[AKIron]

All the more reason to carry a gun, kill your attacker so they don't sue for wrongful imprisonment.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Um, Steve?

Aren't YOU part of the Justice System?

MT, you would not believe some of the toejam I have seen taking place in the "justice" system. Innocent guys sent away for years in prison or guilty diddlying rapists walking because the vicitim is too scared to testify. Working inside the justice system just strips you of any illusions you might have had about "right and wrong" and generally makes you lose faith in humanity.

[DOODY]

I wonder what any of you would do, had you been arrested in the park that day.

[ccvi]

Let's sum it up: The legal system in the US sucks.

[lazs2]

let's say the victim was your daughter...

Would you consider vigilantism?  Please don't use a gun tho.
lazs

[Eagler]

Originally posted by lazs2
let's say the victim was your daughter...

Would you consider vigilantism?  Please don't use a gun tho.
lazs

becoming Charles Bronson in Death Wish would be a real possibility

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
MT, you would not believe some of the toejam I have seen taking place in the "justice" system. Innocent guys sent away for years in prison or guilty diddlying rapists walking because the vicitim is too scared to testify. Working inside the justice system just strips you of any illusions you might have had about "right and wrong" and generally makes you lose faith in humanity.

Yikes!

Is this why Sweden has the worlds highest suicide rate?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Yikes!

Is this why Sweden has the worlds highest suicide rate?

Thats a myth.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Thats a myth.

I stand corrected... last time I believe the Guiness Book of World Records

Suicide rates

A persistent myth about Sweden is that its citizens are exceptionally prone to suicide. It is true that Sweden's suicide rate is above the world average. But it is not the highest, and has been steadily declining in recent decades. Below, the rates per 100,000 Males/Females in selected countries during 1994-95:

33.0/11.9   Austria
29.3/15.6   Denmark
31.6/11.5   France
55.5/16.8   Hungary
22.2/09.5   Sweden
30.9/12.2   Switz.
19.6/04.6   U.S.A.

[miko2d]

Pongo: Miko..your not covering the case very closely...

 Right. But I am sure the two juries were.

there was only one persons recovered. and that was the man who has now confesed.

 And the jurys knew that.

but there was never any evidence that they were guilty of it exept their coerced testimony.

 And the juror's and defending lawyers knew that too.

 The case is not overturned because the testimony was proved coerced - despite presence of lawyers/guardians.
 The testimony is claimed coerced becasue the case is overturned. If they are declared innocent, surely, the testimony cannot be correct. And surely that makes police the criminals.

 That's the whole purpose of having a court proceedings and a jury - to determine guilt or innocence. Judge can declare the trial invalid - but not determine guilt.

Where they guilty of other things..yes they were . But they werent convicted of those things because they would have not been able to be convicted of the rape as the commiting of both crimes was physically impossible.

 Plainly the both juries were sure - unanimously - that the perpetrators had time to accomplish all of those things.

They did enough time for the swarming attacks. they should not have the rape on their records if they didnt commit it.

 They are cleared of either, not just the rape.

s pretty clear to me...

 You must have some special perception. We, the mortals, have to rely on jury's verdict. Surely, they may be innocent - and found such by the next jury.
 We even agree that a person may be legally guilty while really innocent becasue of a jury mistake.
 I never said those guys were innocent - I was not there.

 It's just that declaring their trial invalid - for whatever reason - does not clear their names. It makes them "not innocent until proven guilty" again but still suspects.
 For whatever reasons the DA may prefer not to press charges against them - big mistake.

 Even though they served their term, the stupid masses and crooked politicians equate overturning the verdict with proving the innocence - and crime of the police.

 Fow all I know, police may be criminals. Let's have a trial and if the juty acquits based on whatever "new" evidence. Then we should really go after police rather than leave it hanging...

 My personal opinion that the "new" evidence is nothing new. Of course when dealing with human lives it's better to err on the side of presunmption of innocense - overthrow on technicality, however irrelevant it seems to me - and retry.
 If we do not retry for any other reasons, we should not make the same conclusions as if they were formally acquitted.

 miko

[Pongo]

You seem to value process over justice. I guess we disagree on that.