Law Questions and Answers
What's the definition of 'entrapment'?
Isn't it when the cops deliberately try to incriminate you by enticing you to commit a crime?If so, later how do thy get away next to sting operations, and the in one piece 'bait car' thing?
Answers: Entrapment is a defense contained by some jurisdictions. It applies when a personality who had no criminal tendency was instigated by state agents to commit a crime he did not contemplate to commit until that time.
In sting operations, the police usually only open up opportunity to those who are already active surrounded by crime, they don't actively persuade them to commit crimes.
A bait saloon isn't an invitation to steal it. They just know by the crime within a given area that someone will feasible steal it.
Now if the set out the bait car and consequently went to someone and offered them 100k to shift and steal that car over here. That would be entrapment.
Same principle applies to any sting operation. If they intentionally try to entice you to commit a crime that you would not have committed afterwards that would be entrapment.
The critical factor in the defense of entrapment is that the party would not have committed the crime but for the appointments of the government, within other words that the person be *otherwise unwilling*. That is to say, if the travels of the government be the critical factor which converted an otherwise uninterested entity into a criminal, then it will be entrapment. But if the political affairs merely provides the opportunity for a person to deed on their own criminal intentions, then it is not entrapment.
A virtuous example is the use of bait cars by some urban police departments, which will park an ordinary looking sports car by the side of the street and keep it beneath surveillance. When a person hot-wires the saloon and tries to drive off, they cut the ignition by remote control and move contained by. Courts have ruled this procedure is not entrapment. Since the bait coup¨¦ was parked contained by an ordinary style, such that it did not stand out from other cars, it is clear that any person who tried to steal it be already intent on stealing a car, and that notion be not planted in their minds by anything the police department have done.
On the other hand, if the police department have left the sports car with the window open, the doors unlocked, and the key hanging out of the driver's-side door next to a sign that said "be back tomorrow", a situation would be created whereby the notion of stealing the coup¨¦ might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never hold stolen a car. Such a travel case would be entrapment.
The general conception is that the police can give you an opprotunity to commit a crime. If you pocket them up on it then they arrest you.
Read this below:
"ENTRAPMENT - A personage is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by statute enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he have no previous intent to commit; and the law as a event of policy forbids conviction in such a grip.
However, there is no entrapment where on earth a person is in place and willing to break the canon and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to tender, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engross in an unlawful transaction near the person. So, a entity would not be a victim of entrapment if the entity was arranged, willing and competent to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity be afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than contribute an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a acceptable doubt whether the person have any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, after the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may enjoy [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it be the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occur:
- First, the idea for committing the crime come from the government agents and not from the personage accused of the crime.
- Second, the rule agents then converted or talked the entity into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the personality was unawares and willing to commit the crime earlier the government agents spoke near him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a probable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by elected representatives agents.
You're right on the definition of entrapment. That NBC show "To Catch a Predator" is the very definition of entrapment.
In one shameful incident, Perverted-Justice.com (the website hired for that show) was trying to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy and their owner get banned. They later modified their website to include personal attacks on Wikipedia editors whenever it is visited from Wikipedia.
Entrapment is when the cops ENTICE you to commit a crime. If they put a bait sports car on the street, but they don't do anything to push you to steal it, it is not entrapment.
Another example is buying alcohol. If a minor hired by the cops asks you to buy him a bottle of beer, and you do so, it is not entrapment. If that minor threatens you, or says he will hurt you if you don't buy it for him, afterwards that is entrapment.
entrapment, n. 1. A law-enforcement officer's or rule agent's inducement of a person to commit a crime, by money of fraud or undue persuasion, in an attempt to subsequently bring a criminal prosecution against that person. 2. The affirmative defense of have been so induced. * To establish entrapment (in most states), the defendant must show that he or she would not enjoy committed the crime but for the fraud or undue persuasion.
Does anyone know about copyright canon relating to scans of books surrounded by the public domain?
Specifically, if I take a book from 1880 (obviously contained by the public domain), scan it, convert it to PDF, and sell it on Ebay as a PDF, do I enjoy any rights under copyright tenet that could deter someone from buying that pdf from me and turning right around and selling it themselves?Put more abstractly, if a text is contained by the public domain and my only contribution to it is to digitize it from an aged book into a pdf or other format, can the result be copyrighted?
Answers: You cannot create nor maintain any copyright or proprietary interest surrounded by a work which is in the public domain. That is the entire definition of "public domain."
You are indubitably free to scan the book into PDF files and sell these files for a allowance, but you cannot pretend or represent to hold a copyright interest in these works, since the fabric is in the public domain.
You can hold an ownership interest within the computer files themselves, but once you sell the files, any buyer of the folder can do as they please with it, including posting their own copy on the internet for further Dutch auction at a profit, and you would have no claim to their profits.
you might want to check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org/
I've listed some other links as economically that might provide more information.
The result cannot be copyrighted. You need to kind some contribution to the work itself in command to get copyright. Just the challenge of scanning it doesn't count.
Law Suit???
My parents are divorced. By law, my father is supposed to clear child support, have medical and dental insurance, and earnings half of any medical bills to be exact left over after insurance have paid. I am contained by college, and had a focal car wreck this former summer. Because I live in another state than he does, the insurance company sent him a check for allowance (the hospital I was sent to be out of the insurance's network) He has pocketed every dime of that money. Totaling surrounded by nearly $10,000.00!!! I m stuck paying the bill.s and am a struggling student. I eat Ramen similar to it's going out of style!!! I can't afford Starbuck's or Wendy's!!! Can I and/or the insurance sue for fraud/ stealing because he cashed those checks and kept the money?? He has also pocketed money on a claim of my younger brother, my brother is contained by high university and is a minor. Should I contact a lawyer?? I haven't ever gotten a entity from this man, not even a birthday card, and I pay for my college myself.Answers: Yes, you should win legal proposal.
Here's a link to an article call "How to Get Legal Help When You Can't Afford It"
http://www.courtreference.com/court-refe...
also, usually medical bills do not mess up a person's credit as bad as other types of unpaid debts. Check out the interconnect below for online resources organized by state.
In the future, you might want to try taking a copy of the court directive with you to the doctor's organization and make sure that he is name as the person to transport the bill to.
The link below also have information about courts contained by every state that can help you take a copy of the order from the court if you do not enjoy a copy.
Point the Hospital to your father's address and phone number.
Let their lawyers (the hospital) fiddle with the non - payment.
If your form care have paid your father and he have not paided the hospital, do not stand in the middle. He is still responsible for the money as long as you are a student. His name is on the insurance policy.
In what year was the state of pennsylvania admit to the union?
Answers: Pennsylvania be our second state, founded on December 12, 1787.
Its history goes support to 1681, when Charles II used it to pay a debt to Sir William Penn, an English Admiral within the Royal Navy. Pennsylvania translates to "Penn's Woods". However, it did not officially become a state until 1787.
Delaware be the first state, founded December 7th of the same year.
It is one of the productive 13 states. So it is either 1776, when the Articles of Confederation be adopted or 1789 when the Constitution be ratified.
Do you believe Huckabee's denial that was a "floating cross" contained by the background of his Christmas commercial?
If you've not see the Mike Huckabee Christmas commercial, here's the link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtk...
There is a bookshelf surrounded by the background, painted white & shining surrounded by the lights behind Huckabee's manager. As the camera trucks side to side, this bookshelf appears to form a "floating cross" in the circumstance as Huckabee reminds us to think in the region of the birth of Jesus this Christmas.
Some have call this a "subliminal message" & that the cross was intentional. Huckabee, however, laughs it stale and says no, it be just a bookshelf and not intentionally included as a crucifix.
What do you give attention to? Would not the camera man or director have see this as the commercial was shot & perchance said something about it? Do you believe Huckabee is recounting the truth when he said it was totally coincidental? Or did they know exactly what they be doing & Huckabee just didn't want to be accuse of resorting to tricky or subliminal advertising?
Speaks to his credibilility.
Answers: No, I don't believe him. It be so obvious - does he cogitate we're so stupid that we'd believe him just because he say so? One thing is for sure - the guy can't be trusted. He have these dark, beady, shifty eyes set within a creepy, waxen, Nixon-like face. Oh, and he'll a short time ago be another corrupt puppet that will pander to special interest groups and other elite agenda.
i mull over he was showing his religion contained by this commercial
i might everone is going to deny if there going to seize in trouble
merely like the lion king where on earth they have the sky axiom
"sex"
but the producers said it was supossed to be sfx
i surmise thats kind of what hes doing
but i devise in this skin trying to get out at associates that he believes jesus is the reason for the season
I would construe that Huckabee would have hired a character who knew how to artistically present him. This would include lighting and wardrobe choices. It would be enormously hard to rebuke the very fundamentally bright bookcase in the environment if you were directing this, and although it is possible it wasn't initially intentional, once it be seen, it might hold been thought to play it up for effect.
After the commercial be shot, you would also have to assume Huckabee would hold reviewed it and been told in the order of the artistic decisions made. I don't know if it adjectives matters whether he did this 'subliminally' or not, but he should enjoy at least be honest with the public.
I cogitate it was a subliminal plus sign. He looked-for everyone to remember the importance of math skills, even during the holiday season.
Seriously, I devise it was coincidental. I believe if it be intentional, the cross would have be more appropriately proportioned and maintained throughout the commercial to some extent than being distorted as the camera did a slow container.
There are two things that don't make any logical sense to me roughly speaking this whole point.
This commercial is advertising Christian beliefs; why would it situation if he showed a cross in a commercial touting Christianity? There would be no origin to hide a cross or try to produce it subliminal because it is right there surrounded by the open.
Also, the guy who started the unbroken conspiracy theory on this is from the Catholic League. Why would someone whose errand is supporting Catholicism not want a cross in an trailer about Christmas?
The point I liked most almost this whole contract was Huckabee's comment afterward: "If you play the spot backwards, it say, 'Paul is dead. Paul is unmoving.'"
People see things whenever they look for them. I'm surprised not a soul has accuse the Weather Channel of planting subliminal messages in clouds. "Hey, that cloud only shot me the bird...I'll sue!!!"
ADDED
The time & most of the activities of the modern Christmas celebrations might not own come from the birth of Jesus, but, for Christians all over the world, Christmas is adjectives about the birth of Christ.
To me, it looks similar to a bookcase. Why would he need a subliminal message, he make his ideals pretty obvious. I infer this whole crap around a hidden agenda is simply christian bashing. What is so fearsome about a man professing his principle? Many of our forefathers actually described that their confidence guided them in making decision in tough times.
So what? He requirements to promote Christmas, if you are offended afterwards let me ask you if you plan on taking holiday payment for that day from your boss? If you answer yes, later aren't you taking advantage of the holiday for your own personal reason also?
Well, he has his facts wrong, as Christmas have nothing to do near the birth of Jesus.
Christmas originated as a Pagan holiday. The Romans thought that the winter solstice be December 25th. This was the home for the Pagan holidays as the Romans celebrated the birthday of the "Unconquered Sun" on that day (this be the birthday of all of their sun god, including Mithra; The same story about the Wise Men be told about Mithra and Christianity in actuality changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to get the Mithrans to convert, as they believed that Mithra be their savior). The Christian Church created the holiday of Christmas after they outlawed Paganism in the year 392. The Christian Church combined the Sun God's Birthday next to the Saturnalia, another holiday in delayed December.
Later, when Christianity spread to Northern Europe, the Christians adopted abundant of the traditions of the Pagan holiday of Yule. This is why Yule is now a synonym for Christmas (in some countries within Northern Europe, Christmas is still known as Jul, which be the Viking form of the German Yule).
Does anyone know if under Louisiana canon, an employer can fire you for being sick or hospitalized?
Answers: Small business can do what ever they want, after you exceed your set off time. 100 employees or smaller number.
Depending on your work history with the employer, you may enjoy recourse under the people medical leave perform. However, if you have of late a history of taking a lot of sick days, later they may well own the right to discharge you.
And it's if you work for a business or company of 50 or more employees.
That adjectives depends on the circumstances.are you full time, part time, relaxed?
Does your company provide sick days?
If you were hospitalized, did it bump into the criteria for a short term walk off?
Are you unionized?
Was there a written/verbal restrictive that you were taking TOO much sick time?
All of answers to those question could make a difference.
here is an excerp from Georgetown University Law Centre.
Short Term Time Off for Sick Workers
According to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics facts from 1996-1998, 59 million workers (49% of all American workers) do not enjoy access to designated paid sick days. Among full-time workers, 38 million(40%) shortage access to paid sick days, while among division time workers, 21 million (84%) lack such access. Low income workers are smaller amount likely to enjoy access to paid sick days than higher-income workers. If these workers draw from sick and stay home from work, they will not necessarily be fired, but they will not be paid
for that time bad. Legally, however, assuming an employment-at-will setting — these workers can presumably be fired for staying home while sick (unless their illness rises to the stratum of a condition covered by the Familyand Medical Leave Act).
It is important to entry that the analysis of the BLS data focuses solely on designated remunerated sick days. At least some of these workers who do not own access to designated paid “sick days” may own access to vacation or personal sign out days that they can then use when they are sick.
What are YOUR chances (not mine) of escaping prison time by pleading insanity?
Answers: Great!!!!! And yours?
Sadly, hugely slight.
I should work on it, but then again, I'm not planning on comitting crimes.
I be aware of the stars reflected within the water screaming, they penchant so yummy.
(Yeah pretty good I devise.)
Well some people own said that a part of insanity is the cleverness to do things spontaneously, possibly without thinking of adjectives consequences whatsoever. Others have said that it is doing duplicate thing over and over again expecting different results. Wikipedea say in subdivision that The insanity defense is based on evaluations by forensic professionals that the defendant be incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time the offense was committed. I conjecture that I would, have, and could fit any of these definition most of the time (such as marrying someone 14 hours after gathering him in Reno, drunk unsurprisingly but still, it was a second matrimonial and I am under the strongly held belief that if it didn't work the first time don't do it anymore, point proven around here, and without question a mental health worker would meditate I was rotten the reservation most of the time, I think), so probably very dignified in the small percentage of population that could escape I bet I would be one..
You got to be ordered by a trendsetter for evaluation, that gives you a better accidental than all.
AFTER WORKING IN A STATE PRISON FOR THE PAST 19 YEARS, I THINK I HAVE THAT NEW DANCE DOWN NOW CALLED THE LITHIUM SHUFFLE.
They are a sure item, however your chances otherwise are looking rather fruitless. I just spoke beside the warden and he say they threw the key away LOL
If you don't support Capital punishment?
shouldn't you have a bough of your family murdered surrounded by a gruesome way, the murderer caught, and later you can sit back and re-think your own view?Could you still honestly say the murderer should live and be released spinal column into society? And if they killed again, would you consistency any guilt?
Answers: My view on property punishment is that the punishment should fit the crime, but only if someone is in need a doubt guilty.
agree or disagree I'm sure you will all agree that the punisments surrounded by this country is a joke, you comit an conduct yourself of rape murder etc you get 3-5years contained by prison..sorry it's not prision any more its a 2star B&B with cable tv, set meal, pool table and in some cases a gym.
let face it comit a crime grasp an easy enthusiasm.
I also forgot to mention with keeping these culture locked up prisions are getting over crowed which means trial prisions are built... someones gotta pay for it adjectives and that would be me, you and joe bloggs the taxpayer. which if you think around it means a relations member get beaten - kill - raped etc then you recompense for them to live an easy existence..
This question is what's call "an appeal to emotion."
It's intellectually flawed, and have been unspoken as such, at least since the time of Ancient Rome.
A dishonest argument. While I would obviously be anguished if a family contestant of mine were kill, and I am sure I would want to draw blood, I would also be disqualified from making any such decision because of my stimulating state. We should not base our social policy on the interest one of us have in doom, but on what is best for the society as a whole.
Edit> Ah, I see. So if I disagree near you, that means I'm a politician and avoiding the interview. I wish you'd enjoy told me that you weren't interested in audible range anything you didn't already believe - I might not have bothered.
what if an innocent appendage of your family be executed?
well over 100 race have be released from death row within the US over the last few decades after evidence of their innocence emerge
compare murder rates for states in US near and without the passing penalty
compare costs of trials closing moments in extermination sentences with those end in vivacity sentences
look at the uncivilised countries which have the release penalty
the loss penalty is so prominently wrong that only a character ignorant of the facts could argue contained by favour of it
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.
I'm adjectives up for Capital Punishment. Eye for an Eye is very logical.
If individuals say that butchery someone who killed is not doing anything better. They articulate two wrongs don't make a right.
But Capital Punishment isn't a wrong. It's a must to discourage folks from killing. Many places next to extreme punishments put people bad from committing crimes.
Such a Saudi Arabia:
Punishment for Murder:
Hanging, Big Fine taken from your account.
Punishment for Stealing:
Amputation of the Hand so that you won't steal.
The Idea is to put them rotten killing. Would you assassinate someone knowing that you would have to die anyway.
Some general public would like to spend a lifetime contained by Prison--Free Food, Cable TV, Shelter. This is like rewarding someone for bloodshed.
that's a stupid argument, and anyone who would change their answer base on who is murdered doesn't understand the concept of logic, if not has no intellectual honesty. while i would for sure want to cause the guilty bash as much pain as possible, that would not create it right. what you fail to figure out is that if something is wrong, it is wrong no matter who does it or suffer by it. and in that is always the other opportunity, that of life minus parole, an effective channel to keep killer off the streets minus resorting to the immorality of the departure penalty, and in need preventing mistakes from being corrected down the road.
and while some argue that the annihilation penalty is an forceful deterrent, the facts don't back that up. the most lawless, crime-ridden states in america are also those that execute the most relations, while the least gruesome execute the fewest. the same scenario plays out around the world. the more society the government executes, the more revolutionary a country it is. and of course if you believe within "the death cost as a deterrent" theory, you would expect to find the rest of the west (those countries in need the death penalty) full of crime and hostility, and yet america's crime rate is disproportionately superior.
Hanging is too quick. Have jail on the lines of Guantanamo Bay with regular beating, solitary confinement , rotten food , no TVs , cold showers , rock breaking , heating surrounded by summer and none in winter, no human rights and f*ck the do gooders.
hey nobhead
ever hear of the birmingham 6? the guildford 4? stephan kisko? barry george?
do you presume any of these people would be alive today if the UK have the death cost in force when they be convicted?
how about kenny richard, who spent 20 years almost at the hard shoulder of being kill by the state in Ohio.
Two wrongs don't construct a right.
No matter how someone I loved be killed, I would not preference the same on another party.
If the true purpose of our penal system were rehabilitation (or habilitation within the first place), our jail system wouldn't be full of repeat offender.
DizzyMan - Capital Punishment IS murder. Just because it is performed by a state instead of an individual doesn't take home it right.
And "an eye for an eye" is NOT logical if your goal is to prevent crime. Studies show that treating others roughly simply increases the level of sternness in society.
I am not a politician. I am a wife, mother, and tax-paying member of staff.
There are more murders in America than in attendance are in Britain, and I don't surmise having possessions punishment has deterred one murder.
So if this punishment is not a deterrent, after it must be vengeance, and I don't want the penal system surrounded by my country to be one based on getting societies own subsidise on murderers.
You are right, if someone murdered a member of your ancestral you would want to hurt that person as much as they've hurt you. But merely as I don't want a system based on revenge, I also don't want one based on a aching response of people who own had nearest and dearest members murdered.
Killing the murderers is self as bad as they are, and they should suffer every second, minute and hour of their time back they die with what they hold done.
If somebody ever murdered one of my loved ones, I would never want them to be released back out into society.
Yet, is execution of the murderer the answer?
I'm truly undecided when it comes to assets punishment.
There have be many research studies that hold come to show that it costs MORE money to execute someone than to keep them surrounded by prison for life. This is due to the certainty of constant and expensive legal appeals.
At indistinguishable time, we as human beings constantly strive to live in a society beside higher morals and consciousness. Meaning that we're better than killer, otherwise we fall into their even.
Capital punishment only brings revenge.
Does wealth punishment bring back a murdered loved one? No.
Does it give a hand loved ones in the grieving process? Maybe.
Regardless of which religion or where on earth one is from, all societies embrace the concept that "vengeance" is not the answer in helping one find peace.
The not bad person would also come clean that the idea of "enthusiasm in prison" seem like a harsher cost than death. Sometimes, extermination may be a quick and undemanding way out. By making a murderer throw away away in prison and guess about his crime may serve as a greater punishment than a nippy death.
* I individually have different view of capital punishment morning to day.
I take in it can save money to shoot a violent criminal, and eliminate ALL chances of them comitting again.
BUT, if the criminal can be put to work, to generate revenue, a existance contained by prison can be more painful than a long forty winks.
If that criminal can also be put to work to generate additional revenue to wages damages to family of victem, or victem, that would be of great benefit.
I agree that slaughter them with a shot is a natural way out for them. Ask anyone who is seeking doctor assisted suicide.
While associates will seek doctor assisted suicide, they do not hope hard encyclopaedia labor for no pay, untill their bodies literally break down and die.
I don't have need of to re think my view, my husband was murdered within a very gruesome road.
I could not in adjectives conscience, if we had any say-so, have said 'yes, hang up them both'. I will tell you why - because despite what I may muse about property punishment, my husband was completely challenging it.
And why would I feel any guilt? I won't be the one who releases them will I? I come about to believe that in hurricane lantern of the ridiculous sentences being hand down now, equality was served, minimum tarrifs be handed down and no I'm not blissful, I'd rather they stayed surrounded by jail, however they be very long sentences and MINIMUM tarrifs.
.If some one go's out beside the intention to kill
get caught bang to rights,
later nobody will convince me that the killer should not forfeit their natural life
I am sure that to give a vivacity sentence that in most cases funds that at some stage this killer will be released pay for into society and may kill again, its not an preference,
I don't believe that first degree killer should have a second occasion, execute them without appeal, don't hold them in prison for years wasting money, if they are guilty do them expeditious, also the second degree murder and manslaughter law should be better defined,
i/e two men are fighting one get knocked down,
instead of the man standing walking away, he stamps the vulnerable falling man to death, This is not manslaughter its second point murder, and should hold a 25 to life sentence.
The trouble next to our system is that judges are given directives to clash the lack of prison spaces, the simply winner nearby is the offender not the martyr or their family's.
wait till it happen to your family, it will be broken not bleeding heart then, as for life span meaning duration not in Britain it don't. the stamper surrounded by my i/e got 4 years, done 2 for bloodbath a father of two im sure that will cheer up you do gooders
And what makes you reflect on that those who oppose the annihilation penalty deserve to enjoy their family member murdered?
You are sick.
You are right to say that wanting a creature to rot in send to prison is "revenge", but this form of revenge also acts as a punishment to the convict. Executing a entity is not a punishment to him, the convict has the end laugh, he moves civilised society to the depths of his arrangements, you are "following his lead" and injuring another person beside intent to kill him, only just as the executee did.
When he is executed he does not think roughly the crimes he has committed, when he is surrounded by his damp cell on Christmas morning eating plastic plenty reformed to look resembling turkey he will think going on for what he has done. A untold majority of people repent their whereabouts after spending 30 years in put in prison.
I have reasonably a lot of culture of the subject, I've had a friend murdered, my mum is a plastic surgeon, who amongst other things, puts folks back together when they own been attacked contained by the street, my dad is a lawyer who sentences these citizens to jail. And I can right to be heard categorically that the death cost is not the answer.
Bruverhoodofman
Conversely if a member of your ethnic group was wrongly convicted of murder, and masses have be, you would think differently. Capital punishment is not suitable in a civilised country.
What do you think of this quote:?
Those who would supply up their freedoms for some temporary hallucination of safety deserve neither.Answers: i totally agree
and institutionlised sanctuary is the biggest illusion of adjectives
Benjamin Franklin. Statesman. Diplomat. Tinkerer. Extraordinary.
Agree with it 120%.
and who is to influence if someone deserves safety or freedom?
I mull over everyone should -have- them, both. It's not something that should be -deserved-
are you talking roughly illusions of groups, or something like personal illusions? are you conversation about religion or insanity? roughly belonging to a group (nation, skin colour, school, class), or almost cowardliness to face personal problems?
what is it?
anyway, it doesn't really situation, it's all wrong! instead of thinking of -not intensely precise- quotes, i suggest we engage ourselves surrounded by differentiating illusions from creative imagination, and getting rid of them (of illusion, of course).
how long is an asian
If a women cries "rape" and it was a fake?
shouldn't she face top-security prison?There are some clear cut cases where the bloke go through hell, celebs not allowed on TV etc...(guilty past proven innocent) only to find out the lass stands up and say "Sorry, I fibbed".
Answers: Send the lying cow to prison.
Rape is a particularly vile crime, it follows that it is a expressly vile thing to allege someone of with no justification. Normally the accused have their life completely ruined. Now I don't enjoy a problem with this if they did it but it's totally wrong if they be innocent.
At present the accuser has their anonimity preserved - that same right should be extended to the accuse until they are found guilty.
Yes.
There's an incident of that local to me and she's been locked up for 8 years because she totally destroyed a childlike man's life.
He lost his profession, his family and his home.
She should be name and shamed and pay a extraordinarily hefty fine and made to apologise publicly to her victim.
I dont speak jail, because she is not rebellious and not a threat as such, save penal complex for violent type of crimes.
It adjectives depends why she cried rape.
A woman walks into a sandbank and asks to lodge a cheque. The cashier looks at it and tell her it's a fake.
"Oh no" she cries "I've be raped!!"
I agree with you 100%
If a woman cries rape and is consequently found out to have lied in the order of it, she should face the humiliation of apologising surrounded by public to the man she lied about and also be made to cadge for his forgiveness (not that he has to contribute it), and then she should obverse at least 5 years within jail near NO early release.
Women who do that open-handed of thing are disgusting.
I focus she should face detain, but these "clear cut cases" you describe are rarer than you think.
Ultimately there's a balence- we don't want to discourage true rape allegations because there's a risk that if they can't be proved the woman will budge to jail instead.
i grain sorry for men. no really i do and not in a patronising approach. we girls scream "NO NO NO harder deeper" and afterwards say no medium no! girls of 13 or 14 put on make-up, do their spike and put on clothes a stripper would cringe at and look 18 or 19 and then the guy is done for rape. if you go and get into bed, get with nothing on and get to the point of infiltration before you say aloud you've changed your mind there are few men who are gonna listen or hear that as a concrete no, not the no no bit of earlier.
if a woman cries rape, and she be lying she deserves the full weight of the tenet, because as has be said the guys life is destroyed. those will always shush "no smoke without fire"
love and delight
LL
If its out and out clear the women lied from day one afterwards they should serve time, perjury, wasting police time, deception I dunno. That would be where on earth there have been no sexual distraction at all.. the skin of what happened to the Hamiltons spring to mind. it did arise in that baggage
if the case go to court and the court decides contained by favour of the defendant afterwards no. That would happen surrounded by the cases where the jury fixed that case wasn't proven.
the disappointing fact is that every time a woman illegally alleges rape, or retrospectively decides it be rape (the morning after, or after friends or parents find out) then that undermine the credibility of women whi have be raped.
The horrific headline statement that only 5% of rape cases within court lead to conviction hide a gory covert. Many of those cases are difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, usually its down to what happen to two individuals in private.. something thats incredibly very difficult to prove beyond adjectives reasonable doubt. thats not maxim the alleged rapist is innocent or the alleged victim is dishonest.. simply that there isn't sufficient evidence to convince the jury that it be rape.
I suspect in constituent the 5% figure comes give or take a few becuase the police & CPS are encouraged by politicians to prosecute more / nearly adjectives cases without in actuality applying the usual rule of is it likely they will carry a successful conviction. No should mean no, but int he same capillary potentail victims shouldn't allow themselves to get into positions which may allow rapists prey on them.. that routine not boozing to excess, not getting into circumstances which may expose them to danger. its almost personal responsibility. That doesn't explain away all rapes, it doesn't explain away the sick the perverted.. wretchedly I think at hand will always be potential rapists out in that.. like other things the difference between a rapist and a non rapist is probably if they devise they can get away beside it (like most crime).
and no not all men are rapists, nor are adjectives women slags or whatever.. it equally follows that some men are rapists, and some women catch themselves into circumstances through naivite, stupidity or excess where they can be taken profit of, and / or where retrospectively they claim they be taken advantage of.
ultimately its down to the individual not to put themselves into menace.
She should face matching punishment that a rapist faces.
Now, this resources you have to PROVE it be a lie. Simply finding the alleged attacker not guilty doesn't be a sign of the alleged victim lied. It only means within wasn't proof of the alleged attacker's guilt.
Depends.
If she has lied, and can be proven (or admits) to do so, consequently yes. And there is already provision for this contained by law, that mortal the laws on perjury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
But I can remember no example of this. Can you provide one? The principle I ask is that often rape is not proven surrounded by a criminal trial, but that does not mean the woman have lied.
No, I don't think soo..Because she can be put into a women center to serve as her incarcerate..She doesn't commit a crime (actually)..And I think it's not unbiased to send her to the detention centre..If she's pregnant..
More Questions and Answers:
[290] - [291] - [1617] - [1895] - [1950] - [1066] - [2175] - [1549] - [1267] - [349] - [1296] - [2550] - [669] - [1007] - [958] - [1999] - [859] - [1237] - [1613] - [877]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: