Fair or not?

[libertytyranny]

For now, and maybe for the near future, but what about after that? So the guy now has to have this expunged from his record. Lets say that he goes to work for the federal government in an intelligence section in twenty years. He has to answer questions about his background. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? (A) yes. Now, he will go on to tell the interviewer that he was wrongfully convicted and the woman recanted and went to jail...blah blah blah...but there will always be doubt in people's mind, well did he really do it?

The sentence was vacated, the indictment thrown out. He can easily have it expunged ..arrest record, fingerprints and all. Then he doesn't have to tell them he was convicted of a crime. Cuz he wasn't. No need to explain a thing.

 

[Inkd]

If the innocent guy has a record as long as your arm, especially current stuff, I simply have less sympathy and, to me, this would factor into HER punishment. People should be rewarded for good behavior over time and people who have been bad, over time, should suffer, if nothing else, some doubt.

Again, I am wondering why he was convicted in the first place. My suspicion is that he has at least somewhat of a sketchy past. TV wants us to believe that absolutely innocent, good people go to jail all the time, end up on skid row and become criminals due to an unjust system and I am sure that happens once in a great while. However, more often than not, the 'victim' isn't always such a totally innocent bystander.

I think that should matter at least a little.

I've got to disagree with part of what you say. I don't feel that good behavior should be rewarded, why should you be rewarded for doing what is right? To suggest that POS lying b*#ch should get a medal for getting him off the streets for four years is absolutely asinine, I now feel the just punishment is that she should do twice the time that he has done and they should both be sterilized so they cannot soil the earth with their offspring.

 

[tom88]

The sentence was vacated, the indictment thrown out. He can easily have it expunged ..arrest record, fingerprints and all. Then he doesn't have to tell them he was convicted of a crime. Cuz he wasn't. No need to explain a thing.

Sure he does. If he seeks a job in intelligence or national security, a standard question on a polygraph is have you ever been convicted of a crime. If he answers no, he is lying. He has been convicted but was later exonerated.

 

[tom88]

The sentence was vacated, the indictment thrown out. He can easily have it expunged ..arrest record, fingerprints and all. Then he doesn't have to tell them he was convicted of a crime. Cuz he wasn't. No need to explain a thing.

One other thing. If you believe that arrest record, fingerprints, and all is gone, then you are a bit naive.

 

[libertytyranny]

One other thing. If you believe that arrest record, fingerprints, and all is gone, then you are a bit naive.

If they can see the small trace left, they can also see the court order exonerating him.

I don't think this is going to ruin him. Everyone knows the chick lied. He didn't commit a crime, there is no record of the arrest happening, it was like it never happened. Employers CANNOT discriminate over information that is exponged or sealed. It is not "on his record" by any stretch of the imagination. It never happened. No arrest, no indictment, no conviction. Each authority sends you a letter explaining it has been removed from their records. Law enforcement has limited access to information in certain cases.

 

[Larry Gude]

I've got to disagree with part of what you say. I don't feel that good behavior should be rewarded, why should you be rewarded for doing what is right? To suggest that POS lying b*#ch should get a medal for getting him off the streets for four years is absolutely asinine, I now feel the just punishment is that she should do twice the time that he has done and they should both be sterilized so they cannot soil the earth with their offspring.

No, no, no, no, no!

Let's assume it was you falsely accused, OK? And you've been a good boy your whole life, right? And then there is me, low life, inner lawyer, long time cat beater, abuser of women and tearer of mattress tags, right?

If we both got accused of raping this broad, and, wrongly convicted, what I am saying is you, good guy, she stole more from you than she did me. I probably deserved to be in jail for something else and you don't even short tip bad waitress's. Thus, her punishment for hosing you should be worse than for costing me time I probably woulda got busted for something else and been in the can anyway.

See my point, dude?

 

[Larry Gude]

It makes a difference to me that the non-rapist has a string of violent offenses. Now I've changed my mind and fake rape girl should get a medal for getting him off the streets for those four years. Or maybe they could just stick them in a cage and let them fight it out.

I should know better than to comment on some news story before I get all the details.

Atta girl!

 

[Larry Gude]

So, in your view, if a rape victim had a long rap sheet of prostitution arrests, should that reality affect the rapist's sentence? Assume that there is absolutely no doubt that he raped her and that the rape had nothing to do with her being a prostitute - it wasn't some kind of 'misunderstanding' about consent. He's a POS rapist, and his victim just happened to be a prostitute.

I am not sure if that is a question or a declarative statement. :shrug:

Prostitution is not, in my view, a violent crime unless, of course, you pay extra for it.

You provided the link I was looking for; this guy got convicted, at least in part, because he has a history of violence, yes? I suspected as much.

So, as I have clarified elsewhere, her punishment should be mitigated because she didn't rob bad guy of as much as she would have robbed Gus Good Guy Tilted of had she falsely accused and gotten convicted you. Ergo, falsely accusing a good person merits more penalty on her part.

 

[awpitt]

And then there is me, low life, inner lawyer, long time cat beater, abuser of women and tearer of mattress tags, right?

You should get 20 for that.

 

[Larry Gude]

You should get 20 for that.

I did.

 

[tom88]

If they can see the small trace left, they can also see the court order exonerating him.

I don't think this is going to ruin him. Everyone knows the chick lied. He didn't commit a crime, there is no record of the arrest happening, it was like it never happened. Employers CANNOT discriminate over information that is exponged or sealed. It is not "on his record" by any stretch of the imagination. It never happened. No arrest, no indictment, no conviction. Each authority sends you a letter explaining it has been removed from their records. Law enforcement has limited access to information in certain cases.

Originally Posted by libertytyranny
Not sure what you mean by this, but no. He won't. He has been cleared of all charges, and everyone now knows he was put in jail for a lie, and feel sorry for him. "folk hero" refers to someone who gains noteriety for something and generally has a sympathetic following...nothing to do with folk tales

Nobody is saying anyone is going to discriminate. Your above quote indicates that "everyone" knows he was put in jail for a lie. My point is, maybe that is true now, but years down the road, when he tells someone that is the case, the thought is always going to be that he did something to get him in that trouble. Sorry, that is just how the human works. Just like a guy who is aquitted of charges, most often people think there is "something" there.

But lets take the discrimination issue. In ten years, unless this guy carries around newspapers of her arrest with him, an employer is not going to keep searching for that. They may take the guy at his word, but it might always be in the back of their mind that he did something. That may be the thing that the employer finds a better qualified applicant over, and it never has to be revealed.

 

[tom88]

No, no, no, no, no!

Let's assume it was you falsely accused, OK? And you've been a good boy your whole life, right? And then there is me, low life, inner lawyer, long time cat beater, abuser of women and tearer of mattress tags, right?

If we both got accused of raping this broad, and, wrongly convicted, what I am saying is you, good guy, she stole more from you than she did me. I probably deserved to be in jail for something else and you don't even short tip bad waitress's. Thus, her punishment for hosing you should be worse than for costing me time I probably woulda got busted for something else and been in the can anyway.

See my point, dude?

I see your point about the bad dude going to jail longer, but don't see any difference about her. People change and not everyone with a rap sheet is bad all their life. The rap sheet guy just got caught, doesn't mean the other guy isn't a bad guy too. She didn't do this to the guy because she was trying to right some other wrong that HE did, she did it for herself.

Too often in this society, bad and good are based on convictions. There are a lot of BAD people that have been aquitted.....o j......then what happened in vegas didn't stay there any more.

 

[Tilted]

I am not sure if that is a question or a declarative statement. :shrug:

Prostitution is not, in my view, a violent crime unless, of course, you pay extra for it.

You provided the link I was looking for; this guy got convicted, at least in part, because he has a history of violence, yes? I suspected as much.

So, as I have clarified elsewhere, her punishment should be mitigated because she didn't rob bad guy of as much as she would have robbed Gus Good Guy Tilted of had she falsely accused and gotten convicted you. Ergo, falsely accusing a good person merits more penalty on her part.

Okay, okay - so, what the crime cost the victim is in play - it weighs on the appropriate severity of the penalty? Help me with the principles that guide when it should weigh, and to what degree it should weigh. Should the killing of a 42 year old obese guy be punished more leniently than the killing of a 26 year old specimen of perfect health and genetically anticipated longevity? That is, of course, assuming they were both hacked to pieces in the same manner and for the same reasons.

Please take the bait, please take the bait.


(Additionally - no declarative statement intended in the previous post. I don't even consider prostitution a crime, except in the sense that, well, it actually is legally considered as such under most circumstances.)

 

[Larry Gude]

I see your point about the bad dude going to jail longer, but don't see any difference about her. People change and not everyone with a rap sheet is bad all their life. The rap sheet guy just got caught, doesn't mean the other guy isn't a bad guy too. She didn't do this to the guy because she was trying to right some other wrong that HE did, she did it for herself.

Too often in this society, bad and good are based on convictions. There are a lot of BAD people that have been aquitted.....o j......then what happened in vegas didn't stay there any more.

See, we need more people like you who can just know when someone is good or bad, never mind their record and/or rap sheet.

I expressly made the example of a good guy vs. bad guy because, at trial, when legions of people come out to say you were a good guy, always have been and have never been in trouble and there must be some mistake, we are getting into very strong evidence vs. when I go to trial and my mom shows up and says "Good riddance. I shoulda aborted your ass..." we have a definitive difference and from there, our girl catches a break to some degree.

I see your point, however, I make a distinction. I think the judge did, too when he convicted this dude. He put him away when the same evidence would perhaps not convicted you.

 

[Larry Gude]

Should the killing of a 42 year old obese guy be punished more severely than the killing of a 26 year old specimen of perfect health and genetically anticipated longevity?

Is that what you meant or the converse?

 

[Bann]

The truth hurts rape liar - NYPOST.com



Is that a fair sentence? Should she get more time or less time?

No, it's not a fair sentence! She should get at least as much time as he had. Actually, a lot more, IMO.

 

[Tilted]

Is that what you meant or the converse?

I meant the converse. Thanks.

 

[tom88]

See, we need more people like you who can just know when someone is good or bad, never mind their record and/or rap sheet.

I expressly made the example of a good guy vs. bad guy because, at trial, when legions of people come out to say you were a good guy, always have been and have never been in trouble and there must be some mistake, we are getting into very strong evidence vs. when I go to trial and my mom shows up and says "Good riddance. I shoulda aborted your ass..." we have a definitive difference and from there, our girl catches a break to some degree.

I see your point, however, I make a distinction. I think the judge did, too when he convicted this dude. He put him away when the same evidence would perhaps not convicted you.

Larry, let me say this. I have been in a lot of courts in this state, and have seen a lot of post conviction testimony. I think it was in St. Mary's County a few years back when the teacher was convicted of seducing one of his students. At the sentencing hearing, there were scores of people who came to this teacher's defense. What a great guy he was....he always cared so much for the kiddies....yet, this one particular kid, he plied with beer and when the kid passed out the teacher sexually assaulted him! I don't put a lot of credence in the community coming out for the guy either.

 

[This_person]

Each crime should be viewed individually. If rape is rape, then he should have been sentenced based on it being rape.

If you want to take someone's previous record into account, pass a law that says "hey, if this is your third conviction for something bad, you get worse punishment". Otherwise, I don't believe it's fair to change someone's status based on other crimes.

If it were appropriate to further punish someone because they'd been punished before, just punish them twice for the first crime and get it over with.

 

[tom88]

Each crime should be viewed individually. If rape is rape, then he should have been sentenced based on it being rape.

If you want to take someone's previous record into account, pass a law that says "hey, if this is your third conviction for something bad, you get worse punishment". Otherwise, I don't believe it's fair to change someone's status based on other crimes.

If it were appropriate to further punish someone because they'd been punished before, just punish them twice for the first crime and get it over with.

Sentencing guidlines do take into consideration of past offenses. If you have previous convictions, your sentencing guidelines increase.