What gives you or anyone the right to take another person's life. Rape is bad, but you can't judge a person unless you walk a mile in a another man's shoe.
i really wouldnt want to walk a mile in a rapists shoe. what gives me the right to take away anothers life? nothing, thats why im not taking lives, thats why im sitting here saying that his life should be taken. maybe if it was upto me, he wouldnt be alive right now. maybe because i seem to uphold different cultural morals than you, and feel that rape is by far the worse crime after murder and should be punished by death. Im not here judging the rapist, im just suggesting a punishment approach.
I saw first hand for two and a half years of my life what rape can do to another person. They shouldn't be treated like murderers, but pretty damn close. The destruction rapists leave lingers a lot longer than the prison sentences they may get, when a lot of times, they don't get anything.
Not to make light of a serious situation but every time I pass this thread title I want to start singing Johnny Cash. If your sentancing fit within the guidelines of the crime he was convicted of you did just fine. You aren't there to decide what the law should be, but rather to make sure the law is executed in the way that it should be. You are there to act as an instrument of the law. What you personally think of rape is irrelevant when you are in the jury box.
Essentially, yes, he sealed his fate by getting the details of a visit 11 years ago wrong. More specifically, he told a transparent lie. I don't know how well I'd be able to explain it all second-hand. But not one of the 12 of us felt any discomfort in convicting him. I was leaning toward convicting, actually, before he took the stand, on the girl's testimony. She was good. So, I wouldn't say he was convicted simply for mistaking the circumstance, but he did seal the deal by it. As for the other victim we heard about in the punishment phase, that was a hard deal, and I don't think it added much to his sentence. It perhaps took away tendencies toward mercy, perhaps. I was not convinced that the State had proved that crime beyond a reasonable doubt, so I would not tack on more years for the crime. However, in sentencing, you can consider other crimes and other "bad acts." He freely admitted he had picked up this girl and had sex with her for 3 weeks and then ditched her in a parking lot. He was aware that she had a severe mental handicap. We felt it was well proved that he took advantage of the girl's handicap and was guilty of a "bad act" even if he did manage to get some kind of consent out of her. So, in punishment for the rape of the 8 year old, we took into consideration that he had set a pattern of preying on the vulnerable by fondling two young girls and taking advantage of a r****ded woman. In fact, at one point in deliberating, someone asked everyone what sentence would we give if we didn't know about the other events and we were punishing solely from the rape. No one's numbers changed very much. But, when the other cases came up, usually the conversation turned to incapacitation -- if we let this guy out, he'll attack someone else. I argued against that line of reasoning. I only want to punish him for what he did, not what I think he's going to do. But, I know that factor rested on other people's minds.
Not to attack your viewpoint, JV, because I'm very glad you did your civic duty with a real sense of responsability, but... ...it still seems like a case of he-said/she-said to me. I'll take your word for it that she was convincing. And, it does seem that he's got some facts wrong. But do either of those things absolutely prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed this specific act? Lets say 10 years from now, someone asks you what you were doing on April 12, 2006. Do you think you could remember, under rather adverse conditions, not only what you were doing, but the circumstances under which your actions were occuring? Even if you got some facts wrong, does that mean that you were lying about what you were actually doing? Heck, I can't remember April 12, 2005, much less April 12, 1996. It sounds like this guy was a scumbag, and it sounds like you have done a service by putting him away, but the civil libertarian in me still wonders whether he was guilty as defined by our court system. Aren't we supposed to assume this guy was innocent until evidence is brought forth to prove his guilt?
As I've said, it is a he-said/she-said case. And it seems like the popular wisdom is that you can't convict in a situation like that. I don't believe that. Testimony is evidence. As the judge instructed, we don't need proof beyond all possible doubt, but proof beyond reasonable doubt. I could not even imagine any reasonable scenario in which this guy isn't guilty. It's funny you mention dates. The charge was for a crime on or around August 3rd, 1994. They picked the girl's 8th birthday, but she might have been 7, 8 or 9. We don't know; the memories are that vague when it comes to dates. But, everyone remembered the event in question and only differed on the rape part. If it helps you sleep any better, it wasn't just me that thought it was so obvious. It literally took less than 5 minutes to get 12 people to agree he was guilty. It was that obvious to us after the case.
