She should absolutely go to prison. The oath doesn't mean very much anymore, practically speaking - most people are not heavily swayed by the fact that they swore on a bible to tell the truth. The deterrence of "if you're lying you rot in jail" is more important than it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23
If there was an error in law, the convicted can launch an appeal. It's not perfect by any means, but it is meant to provide some degree of judicial oversight.
|
But the appeal judge cannot overturn the trial judge's findings of fact without palpable and overriding error, so that will be largely useless in cases like these. And most criminal cases, really, I would think.
Quote:
|
Part of the problem with sexual assault crimes, including attempts, is that there often isn't any physical evidence and it becomes an issue of "he said-she said" with conflicting testimony at trial.
|
No physical evidence where the only thing the trier of fact has to go on is a "he said she said" should
never result in a conviction. Absent some strange and important context or surrounding circumstance, there is always going to be reasonable doubt where you have two conflicting stories and neither is corroborated.