Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
22
23
... LastLast
  1. #401
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Haarvald View Post
    Thats why the DA that put him in jail needs to be disbarred and charged.

    [/COLOR]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

    Sometimes false allegations of rape affect more than the accused, and thats why its incumbent on the prosecutors to get it right.
    Jailing attorneys? I hope you were joking with that, because even the concept of that is absolutely ridiculous. Attorneys should absolutely not be jailed for fulfilling their contracts, either with the defendant or the prosecutor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Yes, current innocent prisoners are important to me. What's more important is making it abundantly clear that we don't tolerate perjury so it doesn't happen in the future.
    Than our views are incompatible, due to my own belief that the vindication of other innocent men is more important than punishing perjury in this specific type of incident. I could continue this, but its probably best we go our separate ways in the topic.

  2. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    No because the statute of limitations on perjury has passed on this case.
    You don't think perjury that results in someone losing their freedom should have its statute of limitations dated from when the perjury stopped affecting an innocent party (AKA: When the dad was released).

  3. #403
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    You don't think perjury that results in someone losing their freedom should have its statute of limitations dated from when the perjury stopped affecting an innocent party (AKA: When the dad was released).
    Alright one last response... wouldn't that kind of change the entire concept of the statute of limitations?

  4. #404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Jailing attorneys? I hope you were joking with that, because even the concept of that is absolutely ridiculous. Attorneys should absolutely not be jailed for fulfilling their contracts, either with the defendant or the prosecutor.



    Than our views are incompatible, due to my own belief that the vindication of other innocent men is more important than punishing perjury in this specific type of incident. I could continue this, but its probably best we go our separate ways in the topic.
    What about preventing further perjury? Isn't that the entire goal of the penal system?

  5. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    You don't think perjury that results in someone losing their freedom should have its statute of limitations dated from when the perjury stopped affecting an innocent party (AKA: When the dad was released).
    No, I think the statute of limitations on perjury should start when you actually commit the crime of perjury. And your threshold for when the statute of limitations should start is so vague it would literally never start.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  6. #406
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Alright one last response... wouldn't that kind of change the entire concept of the statute of limitations?
    Not the same. If you rob a store, the other party stops being wronged as soon as you leave the store. Someone who's been imprisoned doesn't stop being wronged until they're released.

  7. #407
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    No because the statute of limitations on perjury has passed on this case.
    then we'll agree to disagree, I think she should be punished, and I think the DA should be punished.

  8. #408
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Haarvald View Post
    then we'll agree to disagree, I think she should be punished, and I think the DA should be punished.
    Why the hell would you charge the DA?

  9. #409
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    No, I think the statute of limitations on perjury should start when you actually commit the crime of perjury. And your threshold for when the statute of limitations should start is so vague it would literally never start.
    Then it seems the only thing we could both agree on is that the standards need to be raised for a conviction.

  10. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by Haarvald View Post
    then we'll agree to disagree, I think she should be punished, and I think the DA should be punished.
    See, I support the rule of law. You apparently don't.
    Not the same. If you rob a store, the other party stops being wronged as soon as you leave the store. Someone who's been imprisoned doesn't stop being wronged until they're released.
    You said "stopped being affected" which is so vague it would never happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  11. #411
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Not the same. If you rob a store, the other party stops being wronged as soon as you leave the store. Someone who's been imprisoned doesn't stop being wronged until they're released.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...of+Limitations

    Statutes of limitations, which date back to early Roman Law, are a fundamental part of European and U.S. law. These statutes, which apply to both civil and criminal actions, are designed to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from arising after all evidence has been lost or after the facts have become obscure through the passage of time or the defective memory, death, or disappearance of witnesses.

    It specifically applies to the criminal act itself. Not the harm caused by it.

  12. #412
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    No, I think the statute of limitations on perjury should start when you actually commit the crime of perjury. And your threshold for when the statute of limitations should start is so vague it would literally never start.
    Actually, the statute of limitation for perjury begin at discovery of the offense. It wouldn't make any sense for it to begin when the lie is committed since, at the time, no one is aware of the perjury.

  13. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by nazrakin View Post
    Actually, the statute of limitation for perjury begin at discovery of the offense.
    Citation?

    Most start ticking on the date of harm, the only common exception is contract fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  14. #414
    Good news.

    Not everyone thinks you should let criminals go free just because you're afraid of discouraging others from coming forward.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lested-10.html

  15. #415
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Good news.

    Not everyone thinks you should let criminals go free just because you're afraid of discouraging others from coming forward.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lested-10.html
    This girl was 17.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  16. #416
    If people got put in jail for false rape claims... this man would still be in jail right now.. cause she sure as hell wouldn't have admitted it.

    She might not get jail time.... but everyone that knows her will now look at her differently and she'll always be that woman that lied about getting raped and got her father put in jail for 9 years.

  17. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This girl was 17.
    So we shouldn't have expected the girl in the OP to come forward when she reached 17?

  18. #418
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Good news.

    Not everyone thinks you should let criminals go free just because you're afraid of discouraging others from coming forward.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lested-10.html
    Maybe you should get sources besides the daily mail; going off of sensationalism instead of news isn't the best tactic. From all I can find, she is still facing a judge and no decision has been finalized.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 01:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    So we shouldn't have expected the girl in the OP to come forward when she reached 17?
    17 when she committed perjury

  19. #419
    Quote Originally Posted by Maoli View Post
    If people got put in jail for false rape claims... this man would still be in jail right now.. cause she sure as hell wouldn't have admitted it.

    She might not get jail time.... but everyone that knows her will now look at her differently and she'll always be that woman that lied about getting raped and got her father put in jail for 9 years.
    Oh yeah, trusting society to adequately punish 9 years of wrongful imprisonment.

  20. #420
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    So we shouldn't have expected the girl in the OP to come forward when she reached 17?
    What I'm saying is this case is a horse of a different color. Girl was much much older when she lied and the crime was committed far more recently.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 12:13 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Oh yeah, trusting society to adequately punish 9 years of wrongful imprisonment.
    Well considering she wasn't locking her dad in a basement for 9 years she didn't commit wrongful imprisonment. Worst thing I can thing of is perjury or obstruction of justice. The wrongful imprisonment is on the back of the state here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •