two days ago a court hearing for a pheadophile took place in their absence. he had sexually abused at least 3 girls in the past 20/30 years. one when she was 3 till she was 6, another from when she was 11 to when she was 12 and then a woman from when she was 14 right up till when she was 33. it went to court and through all the evidence the jury found him non guilty, so now all three girls are in bits would you of found him innocent or guilty?
2006-12-07 04:16:44 · 25 answers · asked by devils sweetheart 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
no i am not from the tabloid i was the eleven year old girl
2006-12-08 03:18:49 · update #1
yes we did testify its took over a year to get to court and then he was found non guilty
2006-12-08 03:20:20 · update #2
personally i,d like to blow his brains out or something slow & painfull maybe to reflect the years of pain hes inflicted
2006-12-07 04:18:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tough one. With no direct evidence to link the 3 cases there would have been no corroboration. Scots Law uses the Moorov Doctrine. Mr Moorov was a man who sexually abused his eldest daughter from the ages of 9 to 12 and his second eldest from the same ages. It was held that the facts and circumstances had such similarities as to provide corroboration that the events took place. Not sure what criteria apply elsewhere. The prosecutor would have to find evidence to substantiate the allegations to the satisfaction of the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test.
2006-12-07 04:22:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would have to hear all the evidence in the case. Law does not equal Justice. Following the law means following the rules. It could very well be that the evidence and the jury instructions didn't give the jury a whole lot of choice.
Post a link on the trial if you can find one & re-ask the question.
2006-12-07 04:19:35 · answer #3 · answered by bionicbookworm 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If he's guilty then it's abhorent.
But the jury can only decide based on the evidence given - without that it's impossible to say if anybody would have found him guilty or not
2006-12-07 04:20:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
if the women testified, i find it hard to believe he could be found not guilty. i take it that they didn't testify, therefore there was no evidence, therefore there was no choice but for the jury to acquit him.
if the law was as easy as saying that someone did something cos i saw it but are not prepared to have that in writing or to testify in person, then the system would be an chaos... The Crucible springs to mind here.
2006-12-07 06:00:38 · answer #5 · answered by sofiarose 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the jury see all the evidence and all the witness statements and that, although obviously I'd feel terrible if it did happen we have no evidence apart from what you've just said, we on here cannot possibly say whether he was guilty or not.
2006-12-07 04:31:01 · answer #6 · answered by floppity 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that's the difference between justice and the law. Justice is often not seen to be done because some aspects of the law prevent a conviction. They may know he's guilty but until it can satisfy ALL the criteria in a case offenders (of any description) walk away free. I hope he lives a life of hell in the meantime.
2006-12-07 04:28:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our emotions are a results of our subconscious innovations. those could be inspired with the help of extremely some distinctive components such as our techniques. as an occasion emotions could be brought about with the help of any of the senses, as scent, style, sight( as seeing a lifeless physique) etc. we can replace our innovations so we respond in a distinctive way for that reason having distinctive emotions or emotions from a matching stimilus that we've had interior the previous, yet this demands lots attempt and information. think of roughly how emergency personell are retrained to stay "cool" in emergency circumstances. Our thought could be controlled and directed additionally, yet this additionally demands lots extra effective than an off-the-cuff attempt. the respond on your question is finally, confident they are able to be controlled. yet no longer without self-discipline, expertise and time.
2016-10-14 05:16:56 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have wanted to hear the evidence to make a decision.
Just because the crime is evil it doesn't necessarily follow that the person in the dock is guilty of it. People's emotions run high when they hear about hideous crimes like this and naturally they want to make someone pay. You just have to be careful about getting the right person
2006-12-07 04:20:53 · answer #9 · answered by delphi13 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why was he found not guilty? Surely if the evidence was there, he would never have got off.
Any one who is found guilty of this however, should have their balls removed without anaesthetic, by the victims parents. See if he thinks that's justice or not...
2006-12-07 04:47:13 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It just goes to show that the system still favours the criminal and not the victim.
It's absolutely disgusting that he's been let off.
No woman,man or child asks for this to happen to them,and i would have found him guilty.No matter how many years had passed,those poor people have had to live with this.
I praise them for their courage and strength in going to court,and having to drag it all up again
2006-12-07 04:32:36 · answer #11 · answered by nicky dakiamadnat600bugmunchsqig 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋