mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > Raj Feridun wrote:
>
> >> >> The parts and usages that protect criminals.
> >> >
> >> >Uh, they protect the accused.
>
> > It should protect people who did nothing wrong, like victims, for example.
>
> Like, say, the McMartin case?

In any case, but of course I am referring to cases in which the claimant was the
victim.

> >> I think what Eric's saying is he promotes a system of guilty until
> >> proven innocent.
>
> > Since you have not been here for the past six years, I promote a system of guilty
> > because the people did it (even no crime is discovered or reported), or innocent,
> > because they in fact, did nothing. A man in black or twelve amateurs who were not
> > there don't tell a rape victim that it didn't happen.
>
> So, you'd feel perfectly comfortable being chucked in jail just because
> someone accused you of something, and if you can't prove your innocence,
> well, that's just  the luck of the draw.

No, because you are suggesting guilty until proven innocent, which I do not believe in
(that was my late father) and am not promoting.

I am perfectly comfortable with being punished (whether or not that includes
incarceration) for what I have done, and what I have NOT done never becoming an issue.
Same as with other criminals or those falsely accused.

> BTW, do you know what the conviction rate is, for major crimes?

Yes, for example

http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/sources/conviction-rate.html

which is why the conviction rate for rape is a poor indicator for how effective the
law is at catching rapists.

That particular page has the interesting factoid that most rape convictions involve no
trial, because some sort of plea is made. I do not know if that includes to lesser or
a reduced number of charges.