tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post6885687398377135059..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Indigent defense, child victims up for discussion in House, Senate tomorrowGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-92117485368251917442010-05-12T16:28:54.243-05:002010-05-12T16:28:54.243-05:00Sure, 3:55, and in those cases there is likely add...Sure, 3:55, and in those cases there is likely additional evidence. <br /><br />False convictions happen in clusters surrounding specific types of bad evidence: Bad eye ids, bad forensics, etc.. What's more, the arson statute is <a href="http://justiceforyall.blogspot.com/2010/05/kick-tires-and-light-fires-primer-on.html" rel="nofollow">among the broadest in the penal code</a> so it's relatively easy to secure convictions, even false ones. <br /><br />Your comments seem to ignore that only a small minority of cases convict innocent people. Nobody (at least not me) ever claimed we're talking about the majority of cases. If the overall false conviction rate were just .75% (the <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/05/counting-innocent-discussion-of.html" rel="nofollow">estimate from a DA</a> once cited by Antonin Scalia) that's 1,200 innocent people in Texas prisons, and there's reason to believe <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/01/estimating-false-convictions-thousands.html" rel="nofollow">the number may be higher</a>.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-56656577899426032682010-05-12T15:55:03.153-05:002010-05-12T15:55:03.153-05:00Because if the number or child vs. stranger sexual...Because if the number or child vs. stranger sexual abuse claims is already so infinitesimal, it would stand to reason that the number of false identfications in these cases is even more remote. Surely in some of those very rare cases, the child actually does get it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82309461494643079712010-05-12T15:42:50.089-05:002010-05-12T15:42:50.089-05:00Also, what makes you think the Rachell case was a ...Also, what makes you think the Rachell case was a <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/03/eyewitnesses-in-staged-test-only-8.html" rel="nofollow">statistical aberration</a>?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-4400884786535790712010-05-12T15:41:05.065-05:002010-05-12T15:41:05.065-05:00"Why do you want to create some new corrobora..."Why do you want to create some new corroboration rule for child victims, where instances of sexual abuse allegations against strangers are so statistically remote."<br /><br />Easy: Because those are exactly the types of cases which have been resulting in DNA exonerations. It's a small subset of cases, it's where the problem mainly lies (people don't misidentify a relative who abused them for years), so why not enact a limited corroboration requirement under those circumstances? It's not something that would impact many cases but would reduce false convictions significantly.<br /><br />If it won't affect many cases, and you know it, why would you mind?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-29452102857700579352010-05-12T15:33:24.511-05:002010-05-12T15:33:24.511-05:00Exactly. And that kind of begs the question: Why d...Exactly. And that kind of begs the question: Why do you want to create some new corroboration rule for child victims, where instances of sexual abuse allegations against strangers are so statistically remote. You're always so critical of victims' advocates overdramatizing tragedies in order to support the legislative creation of new offenses, and yet here you are using the Rachell case (a statistical aberration) to advance some new corroboration rule for child victims. Seems a little hypocritical (and unnecessary) if you ask me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-34581460198133642902010-05-12T15:05:57.918-05:002010-05-12T15:05:57.918-05:00No, 1:39, I would not care to guess. What would be...No, 1:39, I would not care to guess. What would be the point? Data isn't about opinions, so I'd refer you to the source <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2007/10/dallas-news-this-weekend-offered-up-two.html" rel="nofollow">cited here</a> suggesting 93% of sex-assault victims knew their attackers. And here's some <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-scare-tactics-austin-pd-hyping.html" rel="nofollow">data to ponder</a> on stranger kidnappings of children vs incidents where the child knew the abductor.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-561471370683264742010-05-12T13:39:17.903-05:002010-05-12T13:39:17.903-05:00And just how many child sex offenses are "str...And just how many child sex offenses are "stranger rape" cases, Grits? Care to venture a guess?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-47232141828947950382010-05-12T10:12:39.484-05:002010-05-12T10:12:39.484-05:00It used to be that way. You had to have an additi...It used to be that way. You had to have an additional witness to claim crimes such as rape against another. not today though. Anyone that decides this is a good day to make some money can walk into a police department and claim rape without issue. Damn shame, but that is the way things go.<br /><br />Until we get a fair and open court systems to things such as rape, and stop relying on the practice of believing the victim 100%, we will continue to see innocent people put in jail where there are other possible criminal elements that should be on trial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com