Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Innocent until proven guilty
Who do you think holds more leverage in this rape trial, the prosecutor or the defendants? Why? Do you think jurors in rape cases tend to be biased toward the female or the male? Why? Do you agree with our justice system's "innocent until proven guilty," or do you think it should be "guilty until proven innocent?" Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
I believe the prosecutor they are going of the idea that there is no evidence, which if there isn't, makes the whole case illegitimate. I think the jurors in rape cases should not be biased towards either party, but typically are towards females because they typically try to play it off like they are weak and defenseless in court cases. I do agree with the idea of innocent with proven guilty. If you can not prove that someone is guilty, then you might falsely have accused someone of a crime.
The defendants because the don't have to prove anything. They are biased towards females because all they have to do is cry and the males will say anything to shut them up and females all like to stick together. I like the innocent until proven guilty because you have a chance to get away with crimes.
The defendant definitely more leverage, she was obviously not in full sense in the picture. Jurors always favor the female, if you side with the rapist it just looks bad. People are "innocent until proven guilty." Just because you suspect some one doesn't mean they did it.
The defendant seems to have the upper hand because the prosecutor is acting like there is no evidence. Jurors are usually biased towards one side or the other in rape cases. They seem to make up their mind before the trial even if evidence points to the opposite. I agree with innocent until proven guilty. If you can't prove they are guilty how do you know they did it? Guilty until proven innocent will have the same problems just reversed. Instead of people that should go to prison getting away, people that are innocent will go to prison.
The legal system is a big mess really, it's hard to discern who is innocent and who is guilty sometimes. The evidence sometimes drifts towards someone because they are actually guilty, and sometimes it's pushed so that they seem guilty. I believe there is a tendency for juror's to be biased, in favor of the female because they feel sorry for her. Which in some cases, ruins a man's life. Some women actually call rape just for payback for being stood up, which is very immature and quite a bit ruthless. I believe our "innocent until proven guilty" idea is good in some cases, but in others "guilty until proven innocent" is the way to go.
The defendants should usually hold more leverage because rape is hard to prove when the so-called victim does not even remember what happened. Most jurors tend to be biased against the males in rape cases. I guess it is because most men are stronger and more violent than most women. I do agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" policy. It should be this way because some people put on trial are innocent and should not even be on trial.
Tell you the truth I don't think neither has leverage on this trial. Yes, they may have raped her but alcohol was involved and drinking can make you do things at times you thought you'd never do and it doesn't help the girl out at all for being drunk. They are biased towards the female because mostly its the female who is raped. Yes, I do because you may not have done something that your not innocent so they have to find evidence to either see if your innocent or guilty.
I think the defendants hold more leverage mainly because there is no evidence that she didn't give consent. I think jurors are more biased towards women because they'll claim to be hurt or innocent so they won't look bad. I really agree with the whole " innocent until proven guilty" quota mainly because you cant say that someone is guilty until yo0u have evidence that they are.
The prosecutor has more legerage in this case because there are pictures and videos to serve as evidence. I think jurors are usually on the females side just because they're females. They understand that if a man is trying to do something to a female, he has the upper hand. He is usually much stronger and bigger than the female. They view her as defenseless. I agree with the innocent until proven guilty.
Lydia
The defendant has the upper advantage in this case, because she was taken advantage of and not sober. The judge will be more biased towards the female because its a rape case. I think innocent until proven guilty is fair, because a lot of people become accused and no one really knows the real TRUTH, but either way. I don't really think it makes a difference.
It's hard to decide who truly is innocent and who is guilty. Evidence will either get pushed or drifted toward one side due to several factors, such as race, religion, sexuality, etc. I think juror's tend to be more in favor of the female because of the stereotypical view of women being defenseless and needing to be protected. I agree with either philosophy, but it depends on what the issue is about.
They both should get the same thing. She was under age drinking and that could mean she don't remember anything. She could just be saying it to get them boys in trouble. You always here of females getting raped, not men. "Guilty until proven innocent", to me, is what it should be.
I think the prosecutor holds more leverage in this rape trial. Most of the time eveyone, including the jury, will side with the woman in a rape case. I do agree with our justice system's "innocent until proven guilty," because they should have to prove that they did or did not commit the crime. It seems easier to be prove someone is guilty than it is to prove someone innocent.
The prosecutor has more leverage in the case because of the evidence they have. The prosecutor has pictures and even video to use against the defendant. Jurors in rape cases tend to side more with the female who was raped, than the male rapist. Women are not expected to lie about something like this either, so the jurors usually believe the woman who was "raped." I agree with innocent until proven guilty theory, because until there is sufficient evidence one should not be charged.
I don't think that he raped her. In the picture it look like she wasn't trying to resist them from holding her. It was her choose to get drunk that night, It's not like anyone forced her to do anything that she didn't want to do. If he did rape her that night he was wrong because, he could have had any other girl that night and he chose to do that. It is only making him and his family look bad.
Jemelle Hill
I think the prosecutor has more leverage in this rape trial. I could also agree with the defendant having more leverage because there was alcohol involved and the girl does not remember anything. Jurors tend to be more biased towards women, especially in rape cases. I do agree with our justice system's "innocent until proven guilty" because the person prosecuted is not always guilty.
Typically, the prosecutor has the upper hand in court cases. Usually, the defendant doesn't have much to defend. The jurors in rape cases tend to be biased toward females. Jurors are biased to females because they know guys are more strong and girls tend to be defenseless. It is hard to know for sure who is guilty or innocent. The girl was drunk and didn't have her mind and was clearly taken advantage of. I agree with our justice system's "innocent until proven guilty."
The jurors are usually and should be on the females side (or which ever person got raped). The excuse use to be that woman were "asking for it" by the way they dress (still is now); but a few decades ago, it was all the woman's fault. Now people have a bit more sense and know that that is not always the case, it's never the case. Even if a woman dresses in shorter shorts than near her knees, or shows too much shoulder, she is never "asking" to be raped or molested! I'm sure the football players feel bad about what they did (at least, I hope they do). There is nothing more needed to prove that they did it. There are pictures, tweets, and videos. What more needs to be in the evidence file? This girl is scarred for the rest of her life. And even if she did say "yes" to sexual activities that night, a guy should be smart enough to know that "yes" doesn't always mean "yes". They should have the integrity and authenticity to know such a thing. And if they don't then the parents are at fault for not expressing that matter. The people that tweeted and took pictures and videos need to be just as guilty (in the sense of law and moral). They had the ultimate power to stop this, but they didn't. Are people really that screwed up (even given the fact that many were wasted)? Cases shouldn't be handled by "innocent until proven guilty" nor "guilty until proven innocent", they should be handled case by case representing evidence and support or justification that a crime was not committed by the client. Just as it is in school with the "no tolerance" rule. I don't believe that is fair. Someone who messes up all the time and gets in trouble SHOULD face the consequences. While someone who could lose the valedictorian spot and full-rides to colleges and only messed up that once, should not. It is not being biased, it's more fair that way. People mess up all the time and I think that we, as human beings, beat ourselves up more than anyone else can. (That's the instance for me anyway...whether it be about school work or things I've done in the past that I'm not proud of, things that I thought I would never come face to face with). People should be given chances, but there is the exception and sometimes it is okay not to give that second chance.
I think the prosecutor holds more leverage in this trial, because of the evidence they have. I do think jurors in rape cases tend to be biased more towards the female than the male, because it was the female that got raped and they dont expect them to lie about something like that. I agree with " innocent until proven guilty" because you cant falsely accuse someone over something if you don't have evidence.
I don't think the dude raped her.She shouldn't got drunk that night.If he did rape her that night it was bad.I think they should take this to Jerry Springer.
I don't think that dude raped her.She chose to get drunk that night.If he did rape her then it was bad.I think they should go on Jerry Springer.
Tyler H
The defendant seems to have the upper hand because the prosecutor is acting like there is no evidence. I think it's the female because they can lie about a rape and actually wanted to do it. Yes because can say someone guilty until you have some evidence.
Barry b
First of all they shouldn't have been drinking. It is partly her fault this happen to her. She got involved in crowd and this happened to her. But also what were those boys thinking when they treated her like a toy. It's sad that few people care more about high school football that a girl that was raped. It is hard to follow the system's "innocent until proven guilty" when there are videos, pictures, and tweets all about it online. It is sad that people don't think about their future. People should think about their consequences before they do something stupid. Those boys will be proven guilty and there lives are probably ruined for next 30 years.
The defendant holds more leverage. Because the girl does not remember anything. They are biased towards the female because she is more sensitive. I agree with the innocent until proven guilty.
The prosecutor definitely holds more leverage. The boys were obviously up to no good. Also, considering this is a rape trial, the victim of the "rape" will always be looked after in the trial. Not to mention that rape is a somewhat big issue right now, so these boys will most likely be used as an example for everyone across the nation. Girls are always considered the victim no matter what the case is.
The prosecutors hold more leverage because she was intoxicated and the defendant stated they used her like a toy. Also, she does not remember what happened. They are more biased toward the female. I think it's find with being innocent until proven guilty.
I think the prosecutor has more leverage in the trial.Jurors in rape cases are biased toward the female, which to me isn't right. And i do agree with "innocent until proven guilty".
I think we should look at both sides of the story. She was to young to be drinking and they were to old for the doing it, if they did do it. They shouldn't be taking any sides its about the evidence and who the jury believes. Yes i do believe in the "proven until prove guilty" system.
In this trial, I think that both parties hold equal leverage. This is because the prosecutor has little evidence and was heavily intoxicated, giving the defendants leverage. Yet the prosecutor has leverage because she is female and in most rape cases, the jurors will side with the girl. I absolutely agree with innocent until proven guilty. For me, it is fair.
I can see it both ways. Because the girl was drunk and could've let them them regretted it. And they probably took advantage of her. I do believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
The prosecutor always has more leverage than the defendants. The jurors are biased towards the female. I agree with innocent until proven guilty.
The prosecutor has more leverage than the defendants. Jurors tend to be more on the females side, especially in this rape case. No one ever wants to be raped, its a sensitive subject for the prosecutor and i guess they feel sorry for her. I do agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" because, if its not true your sending a innocent person to jail.
The prosecutor has more leverage. The girl was drinking. I think the jurors will be biased towards the male. the male would be more likely to rape a girl, then a girl to be rape another girl. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Post a Comment