Quote (Magicman657 @ Oct 23 2017 01:09am)
It really depends on which lens you are viewing the situation from. From the public's perspective, yeah, it's pretty awful that such a vile person wouldn't have to go to jail for his or her crimes. However, from the victim's perspective, I can totally understand how it'd be easier to move forward with 32 million dollars than it would be with 0 dollars and some guy you'll never see or hear from again in prison. Not everyone shares that opinion; some may say "fuck the money I want to see you in jail on principle", but there is definitely some value in letting the victim decide which outcome is going to emotionally benefit them more.
Quote (balrog66 @ Oct 23 2017 08:36am)
The judicial system isn't just there to please people. It's there to create a system of rules that should apply to anyone, not just you.
This is why I'm so happy that we have civil and not common law.
It does suck that sexual deviants can walk with paying off their accusers. But I understand and sympathize as to reasons why a number of victims decide to take this path. Having to testify and be a victim ( again ) of all sorts of underhanded tactics like character assassination for the duration of the trial must be exhausting for the victims.
In the end when it comes to most sexual assaults and harassment it is very likely that there is no witnesses around the event. He said, she said with sometime lackluster physical evidence means the only thing of worth is what the victim says he or she has had inflicted upon them. So it becomes incredibly pertinent for both the prosecution and defense to demonstrate if the accuser is credible or not and this can be incredibly rough on the accuser.
We as a society and individuals always say things along the like ; If something bad happens to you, focus on your recovery. We don't say, maybe you should talk about your issues with all the world.
Quote (Scaly @ Oct 22 2017 05:41pm)
Settling shouldn't be an option. It's a gross affront to the idea of justice.
Like I've said in the other part of my post, in most cases to get a conviction requires the participation of the victim. The victim's testimony and credibility is in most cases sole deciding factor on a conviction. Depending on the severity of the nature of the cases, it's about going through the worst experience on can imagine all over again. This isn't justice, it's verbal assault masquerading as justice. What accusers go through to attempt to secure a conviction against their aggressor Even then, sometimes there's just almost no physical proof at all (multiple reasons as to why) and the accuser knows he or she is not the most "credible" person when you look at his or her's life record. When a victim knows the Jury might not feel sympathetic for them for XYZ reasons, there's even less of an incentive to even attempt a trial.
I think it's an even bigger affront of justice when you put a victim through a difficult situation and the accuser gets to walk free as it happens so many times in those kind of cases.
Can I fault a victim of a crime for going a tangible gain over an uncertain one? I don't think I can, I was never a gambling type of person, so maybe I'm a bit biased here.
Quote (Warlock316 @ Oct 23 2017 01:11pm)
you think the victim would want him in jail... but i guess 32 million in the bank is better than justice
Conviction rates are pathetically low, the victim would want both I'm sure. But you just need to talk to a good attorney to see how strong a case is, and how likely it is to secure a conviction.
These are some of my thoughts on the subject, I'm not happy with how the "game" is being played right now.
I agree with you Balrog and Scaly that accusers walking free and not even having to go through trial is not justice but I'm not knowledgeable about laws and what can be done realistically to the system that it's more...
This post was edited by Helloween7 on Oct 23 2017 11:49am