(07-28-2019, 01:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2019, 09:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The CP5 are guilty. They confessed to consistent details and it was a group assault that included them and Reyes,. Read the Armstrong Commission Report, it's much more convincing than Bob Mueller's hack job. Money quote therein:
"We believe the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. On the other hand, there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants' descriptions of the attack on the female jogger: she was knocked down on the road, dragged into the woods, hit and molested by several defendants, sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs, and left semiconscious in a state of undress."
The actual rape took place in the woods, and the trail that the rapist made while dragging the victim into the woods was 18in wide. There may have been one person in front of the victim and one person behind her, but there is no way you can explain rape charges for five men based on that evidence.
The best explanation for five separate individuals confessing to such a thing is that the police thought they needed to coercively question five individuals to get one confession, but they ended up with five. In any case the individuals recanted their confessions and plead not guilty, so they were not reliable witnesses either way. The evidence should have been allowed to speak for itself.
In addition to that, none of the DNA evidence collected in the case matched the DNA of the defendants.
Now, why did they confess? I suppose it might have something to do with the fact that they were teenagers, and they were interrogated without having an attorney present. Police can easily manipulate a weak person into confessing to a crime they didn't commit.
In 2001, a man who was not one of the five confessed to the rape. The District Attorney for New York County investigated the case and advised that all the charges against the original 5 defendants should be dropped.
(07-31-2019, 02:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2019, 09:12 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]If someone is convicted by DNA evidence, they should have no appeals. They are guilty, dead to rights. Executions should be scheduled immediately after sentencing with no delays.
The right to an appeal is part of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with what kind of evidence was used to convict them.
Then I update the constitution, since DNA wasn't even a thought back then. Sometimes things/ideas need to be updated with time.
(07-31-2019, 04:07 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2019, 02:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]The right to an appeal is part of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with what kind of evidence was used to convict them.
Then I update the constitution, since DNA wasn't even a thought back then. Sometimes things/ideas need to be updated with time.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where one judge could put me to death without any appeal.
(08-01-2019, 06:14 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2019, 04:07 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Then I update the constitution, since DNA wasn't even a thought back then. Sometimes things/ideas need to be updated with time.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where one judge could put me to death without any appeal.
Agreed, the trial process should be fair.
(07-31-2019, 04:07 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2019, 02:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]The right to an appeal is part of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with what kind of evidence was used to convict them.
Then I update the constitution, since DNA wasn't even a thought back then. Sometimes things/ideas need to be updated with time.
The Constitution is way too hard to update. That itself needs to be updated. It used to be only 9 entities had to agree to ratify an update. Now 38 do. Something's got to give.
(08-01-2019, 10:46 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2019, 04:07 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Then I update the constitution, since DNA wasn't even a thought back then. Sometimes things/ideas need to be updated with time.
The Constitution is way too hard to update. That itself needs to be updated. It used to be only 9 entities had to agree to ratify an update. Now 38 do. Something's got to give.
No it doesn't, it should be very difficult to change the Constitution.
(08-01-2019, 11:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2019, 10:46 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The Constitution is way too hard to update. That itself needs to be updated. It used to be only 9 entities had to agree to ratify an update. Now 38 do. Something's got to give.
No it doesn't, it should be very difficult to change the Constitution.
At the very least it should be simpler to propose an amendment. I agree that ratification should be hard.