On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:46:11 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
<etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

>> I did not.

>I see I did snip too much. The entire passage should be:

Thank you.

>Accused ruled "not guilty". Does this mean they did not do what they were accused of? (Y/N)
>If [YES to the above], does this mean that the (eg rape) claimant lied? (Y/N)

>But I see you do not believe a "not guilty" verdict means anyone lied. So what of victims or
>survivors who cannot receive justice in criminal, possibly even civil court?

>I'd like to tell them something better than "live with it", "deal with it", "that's reality",
>or suggest they instead relocate and accuse people of crime in a totalitarian state.

That must be EricWorld where the sun's always shining and the birds
are always singing and double-jeopardy doesn't exist because we can
just continue to retry criminal cases until we get the outcome we
like.

>[And would certainly never tell them, as past posters have told me, that the escaped criminal
>committing more crime (maybe against the original victims once more, as in domestic violence,
>child molestation, or acquaintance rape) would give law enforcement another chance to punish
>them.]

This is only the truth.

>Do you have any ideas?

Better funding is always a necessity. Pick your lawyers carefully
(with better funding we will have better public defenders as you
mentioned) and your juries even more carefully. Better funding for law
enforcement and training means better criminal investigations.

Most importantly stop trying to blame the system for the human
tragedies.