Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!credmond
From: credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: A clear case of rape?
Message-ID: <3345@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 10:14:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.3345
Posted: Wed Sep 24 10:14:20 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 21:47:12 EDT
References: <4834@decwrl.DEC.COM> <2f95211a.46@apollo.uucp>
Reply-To: credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond)
Distribution: net.singles,net.women
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath soc.singles:86 soc.women:58

In article <2154@mtgzz.UUCP> eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes:
>>If you were on a jury, and rape had a mandatory death penalty, would you
>>send the guy to the electric chair?
>
>In the last 5-10 years they have lowered they mandatory sentence for
>rape  in several states because they (legistators) beleived that they
>were not able to get convictions because the juries thought that the
>mandatory sentence was too severe and therefore weren't convicting
>criminals that they thought were probably guilty.
>

People who are "probably guilty" are SUPPOSED to be acquitted.

That's how the court system works in the United States, Canada, and
a number of other moderately civilized countries.  No one can be
punished for an alleged crime unless found to be guilty "beyond a
reasonable doubt" -- which is a lot more stringent than "probably".

This is not merely a quibble about words, because there does seem to be
a tendency -- I won't say that feminists are MORE fond of it than others,
but they're sure no less so -- to brand people guilty, even in a legal
sense, if it seems PROBABLE, but by no means certain, that they did
something bad.