If this were the standard, normal, acceptable practice for all allegations, there's a greater-than-zero chance innocent husbands, fathers, sons, political candidates could wind up dead with no accused left alive to defend themself in court.
The question: What would stop some crazy democrat neighbor who hates your Trump signs from getting their 17 year old daughter to say "YOU, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR SON, DJT, etc etc... r**ped me" so the dad shoots you/him and then there is not even a trial?
Then your husband/son is dead so the accusers are the only ones alive to give their side of the story only.
L A W L E S S N E S S
"Caught in the act" is a completely different story. I say light them on fire.
Down votes are fine, but showcase your intelligence by giving an answer to the question because this would be the newest easiest way to get killed by someone without consequence.
Your question doesnt make sense because there will always be a trial, if not for the rapist then for the murderer of the rapist. Now you have to justify your actions. can you convince the jury the same way the sherrif convinced members of his community? if you can then i agree with the article, jury should choose to not indict him, but if you cant, lawlessness only goes so far.
e: if you catch them in the act, beat the shit out of them and plead temporary insanity.
your question is basically what stops someone from bearing false witness and committing murder, isnt it?
conspiracy is more than just a theory, its a felony. whats the alternative, precogs from the minority report?
So if someone scheme to kill your son, and the schemer gets found out and convicted of his murder, that makes it OK?
in this new hypothetical, what is he convicted of, murder or attempted murder? is there evidence against him that he did or tried to murder my son? if so then its absolutely ok. otherwise your stuck in a 12 angry men situation.
I think if someone's convicted of crimes like this, they should be turned over to the family of the victim.
personally id refer to matthew 18 or luke 17.
Thank God our founding fathers were men of great intellect. They could connect the dots and enshrined the right to a jury trial.
thats basically what i said, there will always be a trial. which is why your question makes no sense. youre dwelling into whataboutism. what if this, what if that. i would call that hypothetical nonsense before it call it intellectual in any capacity.
100% agree with you u/conservativeamerica!
If this were the standard, normal, acceptable practice for all allegations, there's a greater-than-zero chance innocent husbands, fathers, sons, political candidates could wind up dead with no accused left alive to defend themself in court.
The question:
What would stop some crazy democrat neighbor who hates your Trump signs from getting their 17 year old daughter to say "YOU, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR SON, DJT, etc etc... r**ped me" so the dad shoots you/him and then there is not even a trial?
Then your husband/son is dead so the accusers are the only ones alive to give their side of the story only.
L A W L E S S N E S S
"Caught in the act" is a completely different story. I say light them on fire.
Down votes are fine, but showcase your intelligence by giving an answer to the question because this would be the newest easiest way to get killed by someone without consequence.
Your question doesnt make sense because there will always be a trial, if not for the rapist then for the murderer of the rapist. Now you have to justify your actions. can you convince the jury the same way the sherrif convinced members of his community? if you can then i agree with the article, jury should choose to not indict him, but if you cant, lawlessness only goes so far.
e: if you catch them in the act, beat the shit out of them and plead temporary insanity.
So if someone scheme to kill your son, and the schemer gets found out and convicted of his murder, that makes it OK?
You care nothing for the greater than zero amount of innocent men who would be murdered?
The dead get no defense and the murderer (IF caught) goes to jail and everything is just fine?
I think if someone's convicted of crimes like this, they should be turned over to the family of the victim.
Being lit on fire would be fitting if convicted of the rape of a child.
Thank God our founding fathers were men of great intellect. They could connect the dots and enshrined the right to a jury trial.
The question in my original comment is much broader and deeper than the specific incident in the OP.
Questions of great consequence rarely do make sense to those without the intellectual ability to deeply understand them u/Furecrotch
your question is basically what stops someone from bearing false witness and committing murder, isnt it?
conspiracy is more than just a theory, its a felony. whats the alternative, precogs from the minority report?
in this new hypothetical, what is he convicted of, murder or attempted murder? is there evidence against him that he did or tried to murder my son? if so then its absolutely ok. otherwise your stuck in a 12 angry men situation.
personally id refer to matthew 18 or luke 17.
thats basically what i said, there will always be a trial. which is why your question makes no sense. youre dwelling into whataboutism. what if this, what if that. i would call that hypothetical nonsense before it call it intellectual in any capacity.