assateague wrote:slowshooter wrote:SpinnerMan wrote: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.boney fingers wrote:I believe women should get the benefit of the doubt in domestic violence and rape cases;
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.
People lose the benefit of the doubt then they chase down black kids then shoot them.
People lose the benefit of the doubt when they jump out of the bushes and try to put a beat down on a creepy-ass cracka'
See how easy that was?
I can tell it was easy because you did it.