Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Why wasn't a DNA test made years ago? DNA fingerprinting has been around for decades. Eyewitness identification is notoriously uncertain, especially if the victims is a child.

But all of this has no bearing on the insane practice of letting a rapist out on a parole, only to have him commit his next rape within a week. Letting him out a second time after 10 years, as happens here in France, is surrealistic. Like I have said earlier, the only way to stop this nonsense probably would be to hold the members of the parole board personally responsible for the behaviour of the convict they want to let out.

At present psychiatrists on parole boards are only too happy to appear on TV and 'guarantee' that the parolee is now completely safe to let out (wherever they know that from, psychiatry isn't an exact science). So it would only be logical to demand some kind of recompense for their professional failure (just as you would from a surgeon amputating the wrong leg).

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Why wasn't a DNA test made years ago? DNA fingerprinting has been around for decades. Eyewitness identification is notoriously uncertain, especially if the victims is a child.

But all of this has no bearing on the insane practice of letting a rapist out on a parole, only to have him commit his next rape within a week. Letting him out a second time after 10 years, as happens here in France, is surrealistic. Like I have said earlier, the only way to stop this nonsense probably would be to hold the members of the parole board personally responsible for the behaviour of the convict they want to let out.

At present psychiatrists on parole boards are only too happy to appear on TV and 'guarantee' that the parolee is now completely safe to let out (wherever they know that from, psychiatry isn't an exact science). So it would only be logical to demand some kind of recompense for their professional failure (just as you would from a surgeon amputating the wrong leg).

I guess it´s another example of scientists letting us down eh!

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Why wasn't a DNA test made years ago? DNA fingerprinting has been around for decades. Eyewitness identification is notoriously uncertain, especially if the victims is a child.

But all of this has no bearing on the insane practice of letting a rapist out on a parole, only to have him commit his next rape within a week. Letting him out a second time after 10 years, as happens here in France, is surrealistic. Like I have said earlier, the only way to stop this nonsense probably would be to hold the members of the parole board personally responsible for the behaviour of the convict they want to let out.

At present psychiatrists on parole boards are only too happy to appear on TV and 'guarantee' that the parolee is now completely safe to let out (wherever they know that from, psychiatry isn't an exact science). So it would only be logical to demand some kind of recompense for their professional failure (just as you would from a surgeon amputating the wrong leg).

I guess it´s another example of scientists letting us down eh!

Actually, it is debatable whether psychiatry is a science. It is not highly regarded among other specialists!

patssox09 wrote:obviously, being falsely accused (and convicted) of any crime tarnishes notions of justice, decency, and fairness. But on the flip side of the coin you've got scumbugs like these on the news: a guy out from jail on bail for raping a 6 year old gets arrested days later for raping a 3 year old (happened just down the road from me this week).

butitsadryheat wrote:

redneck wrote:

patssox09 wrote:obviously, being falsely accused (and convicted) of any crime tarnishes notions of justice, decency, and fairness. But on the flip side of the coin you've got scumbugs like these on the news: a guy out from jail on bail for raping a 6 year old gets arrested days later for raping a 3 year old (happened just down the road from me this week).

Ya know, I don't care about the flipside as much as I care about keeping innocent people out of prison (or the gallows). Jesus would have felt the same way.

So you wouldn't care that a repeat sex offender is out and allowed to molest another child so long as there isn't an innocent man in jail? I think there is a way, albeit not a perfect way, to make restitution to the one in jail, but how do you make restitution for rape of a child and the mental damage that comes from it?

As to the original post, I am happy he is out. It shows our system worked (albeit slowly). I wouldn't call for execution of a sex offender or child rapist if they were only convicted of one case, as it could be a false or erroneous (as shown), but for repeat offenders, and obviously for those who admit to it, definitely.

patssox09 wrote:What would you rather prevent, if you could only prevent one of the two: The rape of an innocent child, or the wrongful conviction and wasted years in prison of an innocent person?

patssox09 wrote:

butitsadryheat wrote:

redneck wrote:

patssox09 wrote:obviously, being falsely accused (and convicted) of any crime tarnishes notions of justice, decency, and fairness. But on the flip side of the coin you've got scumbugs like these on the news: a guy out from jail on bail for raping a 6 year old gets arrested days later for raping a 3 year old (happened just down the road from me this week).

Ya know, I don't care about the flipside as much as I care about keeping innocent people out of prison (or the gallows). Jesus would have felt the same way.

So you wouldn't care that a repeat sex offender is out and allowed to molest another child so long as there isn't an innocent man in jail? I think there is a way, albeit not a perfect way, to make restitution to the one in jail, but how do you make restitution for rape of a child and the mental damage that comes from it?

As to the original post, I am happy he is out. It shows our system worked (albeit slowly). I wouldn't call for execution of a sex offender or child rapist if they were only convicted of one case, as it could be a false or erroneous (as shown), but for repeat offenders, and obviously for those who admit to it, definitely.

Yeah, I couldn't tell if redneck's statement was sarcasm or sincere.

MikeTX wrote:

Day Hiker wrote:

patssox09 wrote:What would you rather prevent, if you could only prevent one of the two: The rape of an innocent child, or the wrongful conviction and wasted years in prison of an innocent person?

I know it has already been discussed, but I'm not sure the above is an accurate set of hypothetical choices. If a conviction is uncertain, there are four possibilities:
1. He's convicted, and he's guilty.
2. He's convicted, but he's innocent.
3. He's acquitted, but he's guilty.
4. He's acquitted, and he's innocent.

We're not concerned with #1 and #4; we're just looking at #2 and #3 because those two cases provide the dilemma being discussed here.

In #2, there is a horrible injustice being done. In #3, there is certainly a problem, but the outcome is only horrible IF he actually causes harm again.

My whole point is that it is invalid for the two cases for comparison to be "wrongful conviction" and "rape of an innocent child." The hypothetical comparison should be "wrongful conviction" and "wrongful acquittal."

dude, you're not making enough assumptions about the character of people that are accused of crimes. try harder next time.

butitsadryheat wrote:

redbeck wrote:
Ya know, I don't care about the flipside as much as I care about keeping innocent people out of prison (or the gallows). Jesus would have felt the same way.

So you wouldn't care that a repeat sex offender is out and allowed to molest another child so long as there isn't an innocent man in jail?

butitsadryheat wrote:As to the original post, I am happy he is out. It shows our system worked.

redneck wrote:the McMartin Preschool case

The police then sent a form letter to about 200 parents of students at the McMartin school, stating that their children might have been abused, and asking the parents to question their children:

The form letter wrote:September 8, 1983. Dear Parent: This Department is conducting a criminal investigation involving child molestation (288 P.C.) Ray Buckey, an employee of Virginia McMartin's Pre-School, was arrested September 7, 1983 by this Department. The following procedure is obviously an unpleasant one, but to protect the rights of your children as well as the rights of the accused, this inquiry is necessary for a complete investigation. Records indicate that your child has been or is currently a student at the pre-school. We are asking your assistance in this continuing investigation. Please question your child to see if he or she has been a witness to any crime or if he or she has been a victim. Our investigation indicates that possible criminal acts include: oral sex, fondling of genitals, buttock or chest area, and sodomy, possibly committed under the pretense of "taking the child's temperature." Also photos may have been taken of children without their clothing. Any information from your child regarding having ever observed Ray Buckey to leave a classroom alone with a child during any nap period, or if they have ever observed Ray Buckey tie up a child, is important. Please complete the enclosed information form and return it to this Department in the enclosed stamped return envelope as soon as possible. We will contact you if circumstances dictate same. We ask you to please keep this investigation strictly confidential because of the nature of the charges and the highly emotional effect it could have on our community. Please do not discuss this investigation with anyone outside your immediate family. Do not contact or discuss the investigation with Raymond Buckey, any member of the accused defendant's family, or employees connected with the McMartin Pre-School.

Ray Buckey was cleared on 52 of 65 counts, and freed on bail after more than five years in jail.

The McMartin preschool was closed and the building was dismantled and several of the accused have died. In 2005 one of the children (now an adult) retracted the allegations of abuse.

The kid said/ wrote:Never did anyone do anything to me, and I never saw them doing anything. I said a lot of things that didn't happen. I lied. ... Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn't like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. ... I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do.