How do judges convict sex offenders. Do they go by gut feeling or substantial evidence?

Question

I know someone who was sentenced to jail for a year for being a level 3 sex offender, He says he didnt do it, i want to believe this is not true but i know it is a strong possibility it really is true. If so that disgust me and I have to protect my family members of young age. I truely want to know if being sentenced for a year is because he did it or because they think he did it. Someone please let me know what you think.

Answer 1

He was "found guilty" or admitted it in a court of law. They go by evidence and the TYPE OF offense. Okay so now he is a sex offender......is it because he was 18 dating a 16 year old?? I would find that not legal but not unrealistic....it's been going on for years. OR did he go after someone's children? If he went after a child, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten a longer sentence. Check out exactly WHAT happened before you make judgment or fear for your family --- there could be some unusual circumstances too.

Answer 2

Usually, it's not the judges who determine guilt or innocence -- that's usually up to the jury. Very few crimes are handled by "bench trials" -- where there is no jury, and the judge determines guilt.

But whether it is the jury or the judge -- it must be based on admissible evidence that has been presented at trial -- because an appellate court can overturn a conviction if there is not sufficient evidence to prove every element of every charge.

As for sentencing -- that depends on the jurisdiction. Some states/countries have very rigid formulas to determine how much prison time someone gets -- while others leave the sentence more to the judge'd discretion, based on the facts of the case.

But remember -- the term "sex offender" is incredibly broad -- and includes everything from child molesters and rapists all the way down to people who are caught skinnydipping in a lake, or streaking as a college prank.

Answer 3

Jury's use the hate society implanted upon them, as do some judges. In most cases, all a supposed victim has to do is say that he did it, and that alone is enough evidence to convict a person and condemn him for life. This is why so many had served 20 years in prison, yet later to be found out to be innocent.

Answer 4

I always wonder why we can label a person for making a sexual mistake (Date a girl under 16) and call him a sex offender and even a dangerous person for the rest of his life but a drunk who has killed can get his license back. Who really is more likely to re-offend?

The Duke boys got in trouble because one stripper said she was rape while all the DNA evidence pointed to her boyfriend... I think it takes no evidence. It is a political crime where you are guilty until you prove yourself inosence. If the child accuses the teacher he better have proof he never was alone in a room or he will never teach again. Men have to be very careful.

Answer 5

i know alot of ppl want to belive that they do it on substanitial evidence, but judges are human beings so they might be partial to go by gut feeling. I mean if you had a daughter and you were convicting a level 3 sex offender, wudnt you want to put him away for life?

Answer 6

I believe that Judges use both to determine Guilt or not. I think that to be a Judge you have to be good at reading people and seeing the truth through what might be in your face.
So a gut feeling and the evidence would seem like the best way to Judge.

Stacie

Answer 7

Most likely, a jury convicted and a judge sentenced. A conviction by a judge alone is rare, except when it comes to minor stuff, such as traffic tickets.

Answer 8

The judicial system in every state is based on evidence.

If the person feels that they were unjustly accused, charged, convicted and sentenced we have the appeal process for this very reason, so another judge can review it!

Answer 9

they should easily not be waiting to alter their names. I guesss it quite relies upon. anybody who's convicted of a intercourse crime isn't a sexual deviant. There are people who're on the intercourse criminal registry and their only crime become snoozing with somebody 2 years their junior or, there become a narrative a pair of priest in my area who had a glandular subject and went walking bare on inner maximum music because of the fact he produced extra sweat and it become extra comfortable for him. He become caught at 4:00 am with the aid of an officer and is now a convicted intercourse criminal. quite, pedophiles do not have this option yet others who've in basic terms been caught in circumstances ought to have the comparable rights that anybody else has. this is unlawful to do what that guy did in basic terms because it may well be unlawful for any human beings because of the fact in case you are able to exchange your call without reporting the previous call we could elude our lenders and all different issues. i think of that's, in general, yet another case of imposing the regulations that are already on the books.

Answer 10

Substiancial evidence, otherwise those judges should not be judges.