Well, my claim is that due process of law is what prevents us from turning into A) A totalitarian police state or B) A lawless land where everyone is blind and toothless.
Your claim seems to be that vigilante justice is great.

Mine is much more narrowly construed.

If the cops aren't trustworthy or dutiful, petition to get them sacked and charged. If the system is too corrupt for that to happen, kill them and destroy the system.

If you're going to scream "hypocrite", note that I explicitly support mob justice against the system and its representatives, which includes the police when on duty.

~J

you can't paint all cops with any brush, for chrissake.

Actual Rape Statistics

• 61% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police.
• If the "alleged" rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.
• If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
• If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.
• If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.
• So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the "alleged" rapist will end up in prison.
• Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of "alleged" rapists—1 out of 16— will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of 16 will walk free.

Kanada Ten, I <3 you. Actual statistics are the bestest thing ever in a forum tard-off.

that's misleading, K10. the conclusion you use those statistics to come to assumes that 100% of people who might be accused of being rapists are guilty. actual statistics are no better than any other form of argument, because--as K10 has shown us--they can quite easily be twisted to form any point imaginable.

Dude, I just copied and pasted. I was editing in "alleged" as you typed. And read it again, I think the conclusion begins with the number of rapes reported. This is way deeper than "the system".

There's been so many comments made that my standard of quoting and replying seperately won't really work, so here I go with an attempt at a general reply:

Someone mentioned that only the people involved know what is true. That's absolutely right. That's why saying "the jury was not convinced" is not always the same as saying what is true.

My attitude is far from "guilty until proven innocent." My attitude is that what constitutes proof is often lacking. Known offenders get off because of technicalities or having a more charismatic defense attorney. Innocents get convicted because of falsified evidence or having more charismatic prosecuting attorneys. The system as written doesn't work. I can think of a couple better options, but don't really have the power to change it on my own. Instead I recognize that it fails, and that sometimes to have actual justice you have to step away from what the courts believe to be The Truth.

I'm also not saying get rid of due process. The right to a fair and proper trial is a necessary one. The problem comes in actually trying to arrange that fair and proper trial. The need for speed can rush people so that evidence is missed. Fairness can be tossed out the window by biased jurors.

I very much respect the right to trial by jury. Unfortunately, jury selection leaves a lot to be desired. Attorneys are sometimes forced to accept jurors they know are biased because they have a limited number of vetos and the next option might be even worse. It is also very easy to sway a jury with improper tactics. Sure, the judge orders them to disregard the staements, but the emotional impact is already there, and the juror may still subconsciously pay heed to the "facts."

It is defintely true that eyewitness reliability can often suck. I linked to something about that in this thread already. Of course, as has already been stated, most rapes are performed by people you already know, sometimes very well. In those situations there is no chance of mistaken identity. Jumbling up whther he ripped your shirt first or your skirt is something that can easily happen in a traumatized mind but is often pointed to as meaning the defendent is lying.

Saying "I'm sure the guilty parties will be convicted" is ignoring the preponderence of evidence of criminals that don't get convicted. Saying that ignoring blind faith will lead to blind irrationalism and gay bashing is a slippery slope that defies logic. Rapists != gays. Due process != not bashing gays. Saying that amending due process ends up in cops shoving assault rifles in vaginas is another slippery slope.

That "60 months and your name in a database" only happens if you actually get convicted. You could be released on a technicality. You could plea bargain your way to a lower crime. You could get off because you're white and the victim is black and your jury had 7 racists on it. Tons of things could stop a rapist from ever seeing prison time or getting put in a database.

Saying you should walk your friend home is pretty stupid. I can't be everywhere my friends go any more than they can be everywhere I go. I've got kids. My weekend trips to a club are few and far between. I've got kidless friends who go at least every other week, usually more. How am I supposed to walk them to their car?

One quote I have to reply to specifically:

more peope reporting rape is not what's being discussed.

I think any redeeming value in this thread has been overshadowed by the sheer idiocy of some of you. I'll leave the individual classifications as an excercise for the reader.

Regardless, this thread is closed. Have a nice day.

Edit: To clarify, it's not the topic of the thread that got it closed, it's the fact that it's devolved into personal attacks and moved away from Shadowrun.