I think his point is that lots of people have been wrongly convicted, and their sentences affirmed on appeal. Even is the U.S. Justice System.
What I have to ask is “said by whom??”
Who heard these words? Neighbors? Or just the angry woman who admittedly suffers from mental illness?
And what the hell is with this ‘weekend pass from prison’ shit??? Nine years means nine years in a row.
Actually, I think this is a reasonable point, with some modification. In this case it appears she got the right guy; but how easy would it be to not? A member of the public tends not to have the investigative abilities that the police have, the background knowledge that the courts have. And even when guessing the right person, her method of revenge was to cover him in petrol and set fire to him - in a bar. Fire and petrol aren’t exactly specific tools in the first place, let alone in a potentially crowded place where flammable liquids are stored.
Why? Dopers usually applaud violence against criminals of this sort.
She definitely broke the law. I completely understand the impulse to do so in this case, and if I were on the jury I wouldn’t be inclined to be too harsh. Nevertheless, the law is the law.
Now, if he had taunted her with “how’s your daughter?” beforehand, one might make the argument that she feared for her daughter’s safety. Then I could see some legal eagle providing the basis for some kind of exception.
Some things strike me as very strange, however:
[ul][li]He recognized her. What are the odds? He assuredly did not commit the rape in her presence; did he know her face because she appeared in court, or what? How probable is it that he’d remember her after seven years?[/li][li]She had a bottle of petrol. Who carries spare fuel around in convenient portable bottles? Did she buy one for the occasion, after she saw him, or did she go forth with the petrol looking for this guy?[/li]No record of anything she said. Did she call him a monster? Did she taunt him too? Threaten him? It’s hard to believe they’d randomly encounter one another on the street and she wouldn’t recognize him; did she provoke this incident?[/ul]
I am reminded of the case of Ellie Nesler, who shot to death the man accused of molesting her son and several other boys in the courtroom during the trial. She was tried and served 3 years of a 10 year sentence. She later went back to prison for unrelated crimes and was released after developing breast cancer. Her son is also now in prison for 25 years to life, after stomping a man to death.
I have no idea how fucked up these people were before the alleged molestation, but their subsequent behavior is scary.
But IIRC, she didn’t try to get out of being tried for her own crime. 5 shots to the head, BTW- nice shooting, Mom. :eek:
What he said.
I am a mother, if somebody hurt my child I will probably want to hang, decapitate, draw, quarter, tar, feather him, burn his dog, butcher his horse and cook his rabbit. BUT, I hope that I don’t resort to these things, especially not if my child is still alive. How is this at all going to help the rape victim?
If I do any of these things I should have any expectations but that of any other criminal.
She broke the law, taking justice into her own hands.
She needs to be tried for murder.
Now, can I get an address and contribute to her defense fund?
Yeah, well, despite the tagline about fighting ignorance and the claim of being the “world’s smartest message board,” most Dopers appear to be idiots.
Lemme ask you folks who support this crazy bitch’s actions by claiming it’s an appropriate response: Would you rather be raped or burned alive with gasoline? Me, I’d be asking which hole.
Idiots? No. Overly emotional and vindictive, perhaps.
Oh, I’d rather be raped too.
But I’d rather either of those than BEING a rapist.
And while I think the woman should not have done with she did, I can easily understand why.
She mostly allowed the system to work at first, for years apparently. There were no bombings or gunshots during the trial.
Also, a system that allows a CONVICTED child rapist to go bar hopping DURING his imprisionment in the SAME city as the victims mother (and probably the victim) aint that great a system.
Yes, the system is broken because:
The system allowed him out in the first place.
It allowed him out where the victims mother lived. What, there arent a thousand OTHER cities in Spain he could go bar hopping at?
It was apparently incapable of teaching this moron to at the very least keep a respectable distance from the victim or her mother. Imprisionment is for punishment or rehabilition right? In this case apparently the rapist was neither punished enough or rehabilitated enough obviously, as shown by his retarded actions.
So, the system failed spectacularly IMO.
BTW, I’ve been significantly burned, and let me tell you it hurts like a muther trucker. If that guy had second degree burns over a large area, he was probably praying to die.
Sure, so can I. But that’s not, as I’m sure you know, my point.
Well, if this happened in 2005, can somebody with better google fu powers than me trace the piece of news and see what happened to her?
(I still say that it was all made up by the DT staff)
See, here’s the difference between you and me–and I mean this without criticism. Your objections to revenge are ethical and principled, and probably categorical. Mine are only practical.
But the penalty for rape isn’t death (in most places). Is he a bad guy? Absolutely. But she was worse.
[bing]Chestnuts, roasting by an open fire . . .[/bing]
While I don’t want the penalty for violent rape to be execution, my objections are purely practical: making it so would likely increase the proportion of rapes that end in murder. But violent rapists certainly deserve to be killed.
No, she needs to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and pardoned.
She can’t be aquitted, because she did the crime. However, she doesn’t deserve to be punished for it. Hence, the pardon, which is only used in exceptional cases - like this one.
In the US she could be acquited. Jury nullification is the logical end result of the double jeopardy rule; since the state may not appeal such, and the jurors may not be punished for ignoring the law in favor of their own prejudices or consciences, it’s inescapable.
Really? So if somebody said, “rape that woman there who’s tied to the bed, or I’ll set you on fire,” you’d choose option B?