USA (no{at}thanks.com) writes:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:51:26 -0800, "Society"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Ian"  wrote in message
>>news:1109764223.671967.22850{at}g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Ian reported...
>>> >
>>> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.
>>> > html?in_article_id=339771&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=
>>> >
>>> >   "On the word of a serial fantasist and liar,
>>> >   an innocent man is convicted of rape,
>>> >   one of the most loathsome crimes in the book.
>>> >   He is not only sent to jail, but loses his job,
>>> >   his house, his car and his reputation.
>>>
>>> So much for guilty unless proved innocent.
>>
>>Yup, that's the standard that mouth-breathers apply
>>when a woman accuses a man.
>>
>>But, among adults capable of rational thought,
>>these cases demonstrate that a woman's accusation
>>of "rape!" alone cannot reach the standard of "guilty
>>beyond a reasonable doubt" that is required in
>>civilized nations to properly and honestly convict
>>a man of a crime.
>>
>>> I wonder what the Jury feels about the fact that
>>> they sent a man down just because it was
>>> his word against hers, and they felt sorry for her
>>> because she cried.
>>
>>That's part of the problem, Ian, "the Jury feels".
>>"Feels" instead of thinks.
>
> Granted there are a lot of pussy men out there these days (most raised
> by single mothers who watched plenty of Oprah shows), but I still
> believe the way to get rid of stupid juries is to return to the days
> when women were not allowed to serve on juries.  A lot of that "I
> feel....blah blah blah" would quickly disappear and cases would once
> again be deliberated on facts.

The fine film " Twelve Angry *Men* " might serve as a primer on how
to approach the facts in a case...

It might well be... interesting to compare and contrast that
artifact from a non Feminised time and culture with the latest
offering from the Law And Order franchise machine, " Trial By
Jury ".

I make no claims about these demonstrating facts, as they're,
of course, both fiction. But their cultural views might be very
tellimg, about the differing values of their differing times.

>>And, even more frighteningly,
>>there was a judge who sat in this court and didn't toss
>>out this case when the prosecutor so obviously could
>>not get close to overcoming reasonable doubt.
>
> I don't know a thing about this case but the second way to get rid of
> stupid juries and bad verdicts is to get women judges off the bench.
> After that, there should be a mandatory retirement age for judges of
> about 45.  Anything older seems to produce chivalrous old men judges
> who worry about taking care of any "poor little" female accused of a
> crime.  This won't get rid of all bias, of course, but it would be a
> start.
>
>>Sheesh.
>
> Yup.

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/2/05 10:15:28 PM ---