boney fingers wrote:I believe women should get the benefit of the doubt in domestic violence and rape cases;
I generally agree with everything but this. The accused in criminal court should ALWAYS gets the benefit of the doubt regardless of the crime that they are accused or how truly sympathetic the victim of the alleged crime is.
Now if you are talking about the court of public opinion, I agree complete. Clinton is a rapist, but he never should have been convicted in court because it came to light to late to prove definitively.
In the court of law, I disagree. It is the government vs. the man in court and not the woman vs. the man.
This is the fundamental problem that those that want to see George W. Zimmerman incarcerated for shooting Trayvon Obama, Jr. In court, the government never gets the benefit of the doubt and therefore even George W. Zimmerman gets the benefit of the doubt when accused of shooting Trayvon Obama, Jr.
It is not about giving the alleged victim the benefit of the doubt, it is in fact and practice giving the government the benefit of the doubt. Criminal cases are the state against the accused unlike civil (divorce, custody, etc.) cases where it is equal individuals (or groups) resolving a dispute.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.