Should Criminals have protection?
- Thread starter FTON
- Start date
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
Well I don't believe they should get raped everyday, but if someone inside wants to kill another inmate... I'll turn my head.
It depends on what they are in for and if they have shown remorse or not.
Also, considering the number of innocent people whom have been wrongly convicted, such as the case regarding the woman who lied about being raped because she wanted sympathy, resulting in 3 years served on a 20 year sentence for an innocent man, I think that they should be given protection just on the off-chance that they are innocent.
The fact that they are in jail until their innocence has been proven is bad enough.
Also, considering the number of innocent people whom have been wrongly convicted, such as the case regarding the woman who lied about being raped because she wanted sympathy, resulting in 3 years served on a 20 year sentence for an innocent man, I think that they should be given protection just on the off-chance that they are innocent.
The fact that they are in jail until their innocence has been proven is bad enough.
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
How did she managed to get him convicted?...
Eh its pretty easy. You'd be surprised by how many innocent men get convicted for rape, sexual harassment and other similar stuff.
All the women have to do is be convincing.
Back on topic I believe they deserve protection, regardless of their crimes.
There are not only innocents, but also people that had no choice but do what they did. I'm not saying that they all had good reasons, but should someone that stole to feed his family be violated in every possible ways in prison?
Also I might be mistake, but I believe that the ones that truly deserve no protection are usually the ones that don't need it, or are actually the source of the violence.
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
Yeah, but they would need good evidence. I say bad detective work.
And 1) they had a choice, and 2) the act is still illegal. While I would probably steal in the same situation, you have to suffer the consequences.
And 1) they had a choice, and 2) the act is still illegal. While I would probably steal in the same situation, you have to suffer the consequences.
Uh, no, it is actually exceedingly difficult to convict a rapist even if it did happen. I knew a victim who reported it a few hours after the event and the police collected more than enough evidence to prove they had intercourse but couldn't convict the attacker because there weren't any witnesses.
It was literally the attacker saying, "She wanted it," and he got off with nothing because nobody could prove it false.
As for the topic at hand, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'violence?' Is this while they're in prison or after they've been release?
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
On Law and Order it's about 50/50, but this proves my point further, how the hell did she manage to get him convicted.
Exactly, many of the times because either the victim was too afraid to report it because they were threatened, or because they dont want to be victimized all over again by the cops who are trying to do their jobs and then there are the cops who are corrupt and will make things worse for the victim by either ridiculing them (if they are male) or hitting on them and making rude remarks (if they are women) and don't even get me started on the victims who are apart of the LBGT/XYZ community because from there things get worse.
Also there are those who simply programmed their victims into believing that the rape was their fault and that no one would believe them if they reported it.
I watch Law & Order SVU and in most cases, they catch the perp, but that is not the reality especially when you consider the parts they don't show such as having to retell the same story over and over and then be grilled by the prosecution who are not only trying to get the rapist off, but they're trying to make you out to be a lying slut at the same time, with the perp looking at you and reliving the moment as you tell the court every gorey, explicit detail. DNA only does so much to prove that intercourse did occur, it does not prove rape.
I think a defensive wound to the perp, one that would require a hospital visit with a rape kit and a report that mentions the wound would do more to convict a rapist than DNA would. This is especially the case if the perp has no prior offenses.
As for the conviction, she probably went to a precinct in which they were under for their quota, and filed a very convincing report on the guy and when they looked into him, they found that he had prior convictions and didnt bother looking into her story any further than that since "their primary concern was to get him off of the streets, where he couldn't attack again." I'm sure it had nothing to do with their quota itself. /sarcasm
As for protecting criminals no matter what they did, do you think that a cold-blooded gang member should be protected on the inside when after they shot the father as he had his back turned and was changing his 6 month old daugther's diaper, the gunmen then turned the gun on the baby and shot her to death. The baby was rushed to the hospital with 5 bullet wounds and later died.
The father was released from the hospital and is cooperating with the police. The killer is still at large, where he will likely remain.. because no matter how heinous and bone-chilling this crime was, people will be too afraid to come forward, or too 'hardcore' to be a 'snitch' even if it means that something like this could happen again.
Months earlier, the mother was also shot when she was pregnant with the child. Do you think that someone who'd shoot a pregnant woman should be protected on the inside as well?
Also there are those who simply programmed their victims into believing that the rape was their fault and that no one would believe them if they reported it.
I watch Law & Order SVU and in most cases, they catch the perp, but that is not the reality especially when you consider the parts they don't show such as having to retell the same story over and over and then be grilled by the prosecution who are not only trying to get the rapist off, but they're trying to make you out to be a lying slut at the same time, with the perp looking at you and reliving the moment as you tell the court every gorey, explicit detail. DNA only does so much to prove that intercourse did occur, it does not prove rape.
I think a defensive wound to the perp, one that would require a hospital visit with a rape kit and a report that mentions the wound would do more to convict a rapist than DNA would. This is especially the case if the perp has no prior offenses.
As for the conviction, she probably went to a precinct in which they were under for their quota, and filed a very convincing report on the guy and when they looked into him, they found that he had prior convictions and didnt bother looking into her story any further than that since "their primary concern was to get him off of the streets, where he couldn't attack again." I'm sure it had nothing to do with their quota itself. /sarcasm
As for protecting criminals no matter what they did, do you think that a cold-blooded gang member should be protected on the inside when after they shot the father as he had his back turned and was changing his 6 month old daugther's diaper, the gunmen then turned the gun on the baby and shot her to death. The baby was rushed to the hospital with 5 bullet wounds and later died.
The father was released from the hospital and is cooperating with the police. The killer is still at large, where he will likely remain.. because no matter how heinous and bone-chilling this crime was, people will be too afraid to come forward, or too 'hardcore' to be a 'snitch' even if it means that something like this could happen again.
Months earlier, the mother was also shot when she was pregnant with the child. Do you think that someone who'd shoot a pregnant woman should be protected on the inside as well?
Yes they have to suffer the consequences, but I doubt that includes getting raped and/or beaten up everyday.
I actually believe it would be easier to frame someone for a false rape than to prove that an actual one happen.
Most rapers are able to avoid jail because the victims are usually incoherent in their declarations. I honestly anyone could blame them for being confused about how the whole thing, but to the court this further entertains the possibility that the women may be lying.
For a fake rape however, the woman will have planned everything out and know exactly what to. Before the "rape" might even manage to convince people around them, family, friends, or co-workers, that the "raper" has been harassing them.
Plus they could also choose men that have had issues with the law previously, making them less credible in their defense.
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
How would it be easier? As someone who is going to be a detective when I'm older, I've read up a lot about criminal justice. I gaurantee you it's incredibly hard to prove someone of a rape that never happened.
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
Well first off you need to know what happened. Take statements from anyone that may know what happene. You go investigate the crime scene, find evidence, follow up on anything you find. You get DNA samples in the mean time. Run it through the lab, that is if you do find DNA. You also need to know if there was any... Tearing in that general area.
The woman could go to neighbor with her clothes in tatters right after the guy leaves and claim he raped her. Could also break stuff in the house during the "rape", this will add to the neighbors impression that she really got raped.
What evidence? Broken stuff? Ripped clothes? Easy to fake, she could even get the guy to rip her clothes by telling him she likes it rough.
She could scratch the guy while they have sex and claim she was trying to defend herself. The tearing can happen during normal intercourses as well, depending on how...hard they do it.
That might or might not enough to get the guy convicted, but its still more convincing that most real rape reports.
Body language is something that is difficult to fake. A good detective knows that there are more things that go into a crime than one person's word against the other. They also know the importance of follow through and checking up on the initial report and asking for more information so they can check for inconsistencies in the stories.
There are certain things that happen in the body when someone is lying and is telling the truth. This is why interrogations are supervised. Not just by the defense but the police as well. Detectives are trained to look for more than just circumstancial evidence.
If these cops had done their job in the first place then there probably wouldnt have been any jail time. The conviction happened because the cops were no doing their jobs and unfortunately, it took 3 years for the law to catch on to it.
Here is the source link from the story I mentioned above about the 6 month old baby.
http://www.huffingto..._n_2859436.html
There are certain things that happen in the body when someone is lying and is telling the truth. This is why interrogations are supervised. Not just by the defense but the police as well. Detectives are trained to look for more than just circumstancial evidence.
If these cops had done their job in the first place then there probably wouldnt have been any jail time. The conviction happened because the cops were no doing their jobs and unfortunately, it took 3 years for the law to catch on to it.
Here is the source link from the story I mentioned above about the 6 month old baby.
http://www.huffingto..._n_2859436.html
1. Most good detectives aren't assigned rape cases.
2. Even if they believe the woman is lying, they'll most likely have no way of proving, in which case their opinion won't matter.
3. Inconsistencies appear more often in real rape cases than real ones.
About the case of the baby, I agree that this guy deserves no protection.
But guys like this most likely has friends on the inside who will help him lead a more comfortable life than. So I doubt he will need protection, he might actually be one of those that other inmates need to be protected against.
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
Are you kidding? I don't know how your country works, but we have different case detectives. We have them for homicide, traffic, rape, narcotics (I believe some places call it vice), etc. They are skilled in what they do, except apparently the ones that worked this case. And your number 3 doesn't make sense...
Skilled? You need to take a look at the statistics, how many cases go unresolved, how many innocents are sent behind the bars, how many of these "detectives" create fake evidences or are found guilty of accepting bribery. Its not about my country, your country or any other. The judiciary system in its whole is flawed, and will most likely always be.
As for my number 3, a rape takes its emotional toll on the victim. The may also not have paid attention to their surrounding, or how the rape happened. For example the victim could say that the culprit ripped her shirt off because thats how it looked to her while in reality he only took it off her. Upon verifying it, the cops would see that her statement is wrong. While this may seem like a minor detail, for the defense attorney this a proof that she is lying served on a golden plate.
How does one determine who is or isn't a good detective to be assigned a case?
Some cases involve elements from other departments within the force. Some cases involving narcotics, can involve rape, domestic violence/child abuse and homicide, and in that case, the detective is expected to work round the clock with the other detectives in these departments, pooling their resources to help find the perp.
My stepfather was in all of these departments before he retired after 20+ years and his last case involved all of these elements. I remember that we hadn't seen him for a week because he was always working on the case and when he wasn't, he was asleep at home when we were and was out the door before we woke up to go to school, having gone back to the precinct to continue working on the case.
And no, as far as that guy is concerned, he is safer out on the street than on the inside.
Many inmates have children and this guy goes and turns a gun on and kills a 6 month old baby?
There is no love for this guy, not even in prison. He will get no compassion from anyone on the inside.
Right now their best shot at catching him is with a ballistics report and an active tip line with a huge reward.
I hope that Anonymous gets involved but it seems like they pick and choose their causes.
Some cases involve elements from other departments within the force. Some cases involving narcotics, can involve rape, domestic violence/child abuse and homicide, and in that case, the detective is expected to work round the clock with the other detectives in these departments, pooling their resources to help find the perp.
My stepfather was in all of these departments before he retired after 20+ years and his last case involved all of these elements. I remember that we hadn't seen him for a week because he was always working on the case and when he wasn't, he was asleep at home when we were and was out the door before we woke up to go to school, having gone back to the precinct to continue working on the case.
And no, as far as that guy is concerned, he is safer out on the street than on the inside.
Many inmates have children and this guy goes and turns a gun on and kills a 6 month old baby?
There is no love for this guy, not even in prison. He will get no compassion from anyone on the inside.
Right now their best shot at catching him is with a ballistics report and an active tip line with a huge reward.
I hope that Anonymous gets involved but it seems like they pick and choose their causes.
GracefulAssassin
Mori Hater
3 doesn't make sense because you said they happen in real cases more than real ones. That's the same thing.
And a case is hard to resolve if there is no evidence, like the case of the Black Dahlia. They had no leads to anything, and they didn't have DNA or anything very technical back in the 1940's. And innocent people to get sent behind bars, but you say it like it's a lot of people. It's not nearly close to the same amount of convicts that get jailed. Plus it's an unfortunate case of "wrong place, wrong time."