26 year old found innocent after 4 years in prison - sexual abuse case

[photon]

I want to be outraged at what she did, but I just want her to punch that reporter in the face after watching the video.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Damn straight! If she was beautiful, then this would have been perfectly acceptable!!

Oi. What does being overweight have to do with it at all?!?

Oh you.

[4X4]

I think that the girl didn't really think that there would be any repercussions from telling the initial lie, and then when it turned out that the actual, real police got involved, and she had to actually make a statement, and then go to court, admitting that she was lying probably seemed like a terrible idea. I don't think it's that difficult to understand how this snowballed for the girl. I'm kind of proud of her for fessing up. She knows she's in big trouble, and yet she went ahead and told the truth and did what she can do to right her wrong.

I'm not sure that putting her in jail for 45 years is necessary. It seems to me that she already feels guilty, so the punishment should be considered accordingly. If the punishment for finally telling the truth is that severe, I think that would discourage any future truth tellers from saying anything until they're on their deathbeds.

I'm not saying that everyone should just forget about it and let her walk, I'm just saying that she doesn't need to be drawn and quartered.

I'll tell you who I'd like to see sent to prison for 45 years - that reporter.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'll tell you who I'd like to see sent to prison for 45 years - that reporter.

Here, here!

[zamler]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think that the girl didn't really think that there would be any repercussions from telling the initial lie, and then when it turned out that the actual, real police got involved, and she had to actually make a statement, and then go to court, admitting that she was lying probably seemed like a terrible idea. I don't think it's that difficult to understand how this snowballed for the girl. I'm kind of proud of her for fessing up. She knows she's in big trouble, and yet she went ahead and told the truth and did what she can do to right her wrong.

I'm not sure that putting her in jail for 45 years is necessary. It seems to me that she already feels guilty, so the punishment should be considered accordingly. If the punishment for finally telling the truth is that severe, I think that would discourage any future truth tellers from saying anything until they're on their deathbeds.

I'm not saying that everyone should just forget about it and let her walk, I'm just saying that she doesn't need to be drawn and quartered.

I'll tell you who I'd like to see sent to prison for 45 years - that reporter.

Not sure if serious.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think that the girl didn't really think that there would be any repercussions from telling the initial lie, and then when it turned out that the actual, real police got involved, and she had to actually make a statement, and then go to court, admitting that she was lying probably seemed like a terrible idea. I don't think it's that difficult to understand how this snowballed for the girl. I'm kind of proud of her for fessing up. She knows she's in big trouble, and yet she went ahead and told the truth and did what she can do to right her wrong.

I'm not sure that putting her in jail for 45 years is necessary. It seems to me that she already feels guilty, so the punishment should be considered accordingly. If the punishment for finally telling the truth is that severe, I think that would discourage any future truth tellers from saying anything until they're on their deathbeds.

I'm not saying that everyone should just forget about it and let her walk, I'm just saying that she doesn't need to be drawn and quartered.

I'll tell you who I'd like to see sent to prison for 45 years - that reporter.

What happened to 4x4? Did you accidentally take an Elizabeth Fry Society pill? Maybe we should delve into her past to try to figure out why she would do something like this, and that
will absolve her of any sins.

If anything, she should be sentenced to his original sentence as a deterent to anybody else considering such actions, and then the judicial system should be examined to figure out how such a miscarriage could have happened.

I am interested in knowing what exactly happens when a judge wrongly convicts somebody based on flimsy testimony. Is anything done, or does it take 50 cases before anybody looks into it, like for example how medical examiners can be incompetent but their testimony is used send people to prison erroneously. There seems to be no accountability.

[Mike F]

In the trial judge's defense, going by Johnathon Montgomery's mug shot, he looks totally rape-y.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What happened to 4x4? Did you accidentally take an Elizabeth Fry Society pill? Maybe we should delve into her past to try to figure out why she would do something like this, and that
will absolve her of any sins.

If anything, she should be sentenced to his original sentence as a deterent to anybody else considering such actions, and then the judicial system should be examined to figure out how such a miscarriage could have happened.

I am interested in knowing what exactly happens when a judge wrongly convicts somebody based on flimsy testimony. Is anything done, or does it take 50 cases before anybody looks into it, like for example how medical examiners can be incompetent but their testimony is used send people to prison erroneously. There seems to be no accountability.

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.

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. A certain balance has to be struck here, which is very tricky: skew it too far in the favour of the accused, and you'll get rapists walking away from charges, and skew it too far in the favour of the complainant and you'll get wrongful convictions.

If I recall correctly from my 1L Criminal Law class, sexual assault has one of the highest acquittal rates (usually because the defence will smear the character of the complainant) as well as one of the lowest rates of reporting. A lot of guys (including some in this thread) think that it is fairly common for women to file a complaint with the police solely to ruin a man's life, but they'd be fairly surprised to learn that it actually is quite rare.

As someone alluded to earlier in this thread, I strongly believe that Canada's justice system generally does a good job of balancing issues like this. It's easy and often politically convenient to condemn Canada's system as "soft", but our justice system has really taken a long look at wrongful convictions after Milgaard and Morin. I would bet that on a per capita we have far fewer than in the U.S.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Can they sentence someone to prison for 45 years for something they may have done when they were 14? How does it work if you're an adult now?

I can't answer about in the US, but I know that even in cases like this, in Canada, where a minor was engaged in sexually abuse acts, but is not charged or convicted until they are an adult, the charges most certainly can be brought as a minor. Doesn't mean they need to be, but I assume the facts of the case determine what court the offender is tried in, rather than their current age. This might be one of the rare situations where this might happen a lot more than with other offenses, since with no statute of limitations on charges like this, and the increase in potential allegations coming forth when a person has matured and is no longer in a situation that they cannot really control, ie with baby sitter, sibling, extended family etc in a position of trust and/or authority. Thus, if the victim is an adult now, the offender is extremely likely to be one by now as well.

A couple of cases I have heard about, where the sentence was actually quite a bit lower than it might have been, I assume due to complications about where do you put a 30 year old sex offender when they are convicted of something they did when they were 13? Obviously young detention isn't an option, but I could see there being issues with putting someone into 'adult jail' for something they were convicted for as a minor. I would love some insight on that if anyone has any.

The part that actually seems the worst though, is that as an adult, whenever they finish their sentence (probation, jail time, community service, etc), everything immediately goes away including no time spent on the sexual offenders registry.

[FlamesAddiction]

Part of me does wonder what her home life was like if she felt she had to make up up a lie like that to not get into trouble. I'm not making excuses for her and it's just speculation, but would anyone feel differently if this girl was physically abused at home and she was desperate to deflect blame?

Most 10 year olds don't understand what their actions can do. Developing real empathy usually doesn't happen until the teen years. By the time she was 17, she was probably terrified to tell the truth. It was probably driven home to her that if she was lying, she would be in big trouble.

Obviously the accused is the real victim here and I don't want to downplay that. I think he deserves some type of justice and compensation for this.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Part of me does wonder what her home life was like if she felt she had to make up up a lie like that to not get into trouble. I'm not making excuses for her and it's just speculation, but would anyone feel differently if this girl was physically abused at home and she was desperate to deflect blame?

Most 10 year olds don't understand what their actions can do. Developing real empathy usually doesn't happen until the teen years. By the time she was 17, she was probably terrified to tell the truth. It was probably driven home to her that if she was lying, she would be in big trouble.

Obviously the accused is the real victim here and I don't want to downplay that. I think he deserves some type of justice and compensation for this.

She conjured up this lie in 2007, and said the abuse happened when she was 10 years old. She should have developed real empathy at the time she made this up.

I feel especially less sympathy for this lady because the excuses people think might somehow drive her to do something like this would be inexcusable if it was a man instead.

I don't see a lot of sympathy for the guy who recanted his story about sex with Kevin Clash.

Just the typical double-standard at work again.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Wormius

She conjured up this lie in 2007, and said the abuse happened when she was 10 years old.

Oh, I see. I thought that she told the lie when she was 10 and it took that long for the legal system to work.

[AR_Six]

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.

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.

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.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

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.

For those curious, how credibility works in criminal trials (in Canada) where there is no evidence aside from the testimony of the complainant and the accused is governed by the "W.(D.)" test:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

[Bill Bumface]

Fourth, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Fourth, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.

[Wormius]

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.

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. A certain balance has to be struck here, which is very tricky: skew it too far in the favour of the accused, and you'll get rapists walking away from charges, and skew it too far in the favour of the complainant and you'll get wrongful convictions.

If I recall correctly from my 1L Criminal Law class, sexual assault has one of the highest acquittal rates (usually because the defence will smear the character of the complainant) as well as one of the lowest rates of reporting. A lot of guys (including some in this thread) think that it is fairly common for women to file a complaint with the police solely to ruin a man's life, but they'd be fairly surprised to learn that it actually is quite rare.

As someone alluded to earlier in this thread, I strongly believe that Canada's justice system generally does a good job of balancing issues like this. It's easy and often politically convenient to condemn Canada's system as "soft", but our justice system has really taken a long look at wrongful convictions after Milgaard and Morin. I would bet that on a per capita we have far fewer than in the U.S.

Well, I was thinking that there is no accountability from a sense that the worst that would happen is they lose their jobs. There is some kind of immunity that lawyers and judges, maybe everybody in the justice system that no other professions are able to escape from. Engineers, doctors, military can all be sued or go to jail for being incompetent or negligent. What are the consequences for those in the legal system?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think that the girl didn't really think that there would be any repercussions from telling the initial lie, and then when it turned out that the actual, real police got involved, and she had to actually make a statement, and then go to court, admitting that she was lying probably seemed like a terrible idea. I don't think it's that difficult to understand how this snowballed for the girl. I'm kind of proud of her for fessing up. She knows she's in big trouble, and yet she went ahead and told the truth and did what she can do to right her wrong.

I'm not sure that putting her in jail for 45 years is necessary. It seems to me that she already feels guilty, so the punishment should be considered accordingly. If the punishment for finally telling the truth is that severe, I think that would discourage any future truth tellers from saying anything until they're on their deathbeds.

I'm not saying that everyone should just forget about it and let her walk, I'm just saying that she doesn't need to be drawn and quartered.

I'll tell you who I'd like to see sent to prison for 45 years - that reporter.

Yeah good, you waited 4 years to "fess up". What a load of garbage. She could easily have kept this train in the station early on, but no she chose to let it fly down the tracks.

Another way to look at a jail term for her is it might dissuade someone from lying from the start.

I have no sympathy or pride for what she has done.

She is a dirt bag for doing that to that fella.

[octothorp]

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.

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. A certain balance has to be struck here, which is very tricky: skew it too far in the favour of the accused, and you'll get rapists walking away from charges, and skew it too far in the favour of the complainant and you'll get wrongful convictions.

And it's not just that you're risking a rapist walking away from charges. Rapists seem to be some of the more likely criminals to repeat an offence (I don't have any stats on that, just a hunch based on stories in the media), so if you let a guilty man walk and he repeats with more evidence this time, it's going to be seen as your fault that you let this guy back on the streets. I think that based on that, the balance may be skewed a little more against the defendant than in other cases.

[polak]

Clearly the best option when there is a lack of physical evidence is judge both the accused and the complainant on their looks and see if it makes sense.