Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... d%3D149347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have, for as long as I remember, that the testimony of a single accuser should never be considered sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime. I also think that a "guilty until proven innocent" situation prevails whenever someone is accused of a sexual crime against a minor.

I'm also disturbed by this statement from the article:

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur says that the county will not take legal action against Kennedy, partly because authorities do not want to discourage individuals in similar circumstances from stepping forward.

The fact that they're not going to prosecute her doesn't bother me per se. It's that attitude about placing such a high priority on not discouraging individuals from stepping forward. They want to make things nice and soft for those who want to make accusations and if the accusations are false so be it. They don't want people who make accusations like that to be subject to aggressive challenge and when you accuse somebody of something like rape you should expect to be subject to aggressive challenge.

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... d%3D149347

I have, for as long as I remember, that .the testimony of a single accuser should never be considered sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime I also think that a "guilty until proven innocent" situation prevails whenever someone is accused of a sexual crime against a minor.

I'm also disturbed by this statement from the article:

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur says that the county will not take legal action against Kennedy, partly because authorities do not want to discourage individuals in similar circumstances from stepping forward.

The fact that they're not going to prosecute her doesn't bother me per se. It's that attitude about placing such a high priority on not discouraging individuals from stepping forward. They want to make things nice and soft for those who want to make accusations and if the accusations are false so be it. They don't want people who make accusations like that to be subject to aggressive challenge and when you accuse somebody of something like rape you should expect to be subject to aggressive challenge.

It isn't, and you know it. Generally speaking, there needs to be other physical evidence backing up the accusation. You know it, too.

If you want to rail about something, then rail about arrests absent probable cause, as with the manadatory arrest laws for domestic violence that most states have enacted. Effectively removes officer discretion and common sense, but then you don't like that, either.

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... d%3D149347

I have, for as long as I remember, that the testimony of a single accuser should never be considered sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime. I also think that a "guilty until proven innocent" situation prevails whenever someone is accused of a sexual crime against a minor.

I'm also disturbed by this statement from the article:

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur says that the county will not take legal action against Kennedy, partly because authorities do not want to discourage individuals in similar circumstances from stepping forward.

The fact that they're not going to prosecute her doesn't bother me per se. It's that attitude about placing such a high priority on not discouraging individuals from stepping forward. They want to make things nice and soft for those who want to make accusations and if the accusations are false so be it. They don't want people who make accusations like that to be subject to aggressive challenge and when you accuse somebody of something like rape you should expect to be subject to aggressive challenge.

They changed the wording of the paragraph JSO quoted...."for clarification"....

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur says that the county will not take legal action against Kennedy, partly because authorities do not want to discourage individuals who have, in fact, suffered from sexual harassment from stepping forward.

For more on this story, visit The Daily News.

Clarification: Language has been changed to clarify that the prosecutor did not want to discourage other rape victims from coming forward, as opposed to persons in "similar circumstances" to Kennedy's.

Just like a Conk, Z, to work the Kennedys into an argument.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Just like a Conk, Z, to work the Kennedys into an argument.

They consistently suck.

At least they're consistent.

t isn't, and you know it. Generally speaking, there needs to be other physical evidence backing up the accusation. You know it, too.

Oh really? And, since we now know this guy didn't rape his daughter, what do you suppose was the additional physical evidence that he raped her? Kind of hard to have physical evidence of a rape that did not occur.

Another thing: People get convicted of minor crimes by the testimony of a single police officer all the time. You go to court and have a single police officer say you did something and you say you didn't. Then the burden is on you to show that the police officer isn't telling the truth. That's the practical reality.