Charade would be a cool name for a new Street Fighter character.
I can see it now.
Guile vs Charade.
nice!
England?? Haha that country is fucked but its not that fucked. Try again.
Doing well…except for the whole being forced to drink poison by the state due to my controversial opinions ordeal…other than that, I’m golden.
And you?
Mother should be put to death, and the law should change their approach towards questioning witnesses/complainants. There’s a general feeling that to interrogate them severely is an ass hole type thing to do, because people automatically assume they’re a victim to a crime, this prejudices the jury’s perception of the defendant, diminishes the accuracy of the evident, and consequentially compromises the presumption that a defendant is innocent.
90% of people are accused of rape enter some kind of plea, according to this video: http://innocencelegalteam.com/criminal-accusations/rape/
Rape: The Criminal Allegation That Is Easy To Claim andIncreasingly Difficult For The Defendant To DisproveFor decades, the crime of rape has been known as the easiest criminal allegation to make by the alleged victim and the hardest to disprove by the defendant. In the 1960′s, the victims of this brutal crime were able to take advantage of significant changes in the law that made it easier to obtain convictions and justice.
Unfortunately, these changes also made it easier for those who were falsely accused of rape to be convicted as well. Adding to the defendant’s difficulties is the controversial “Rape Trauma Syndrome,” an irresponsible psychological theory that has been rejected by mental health professionals, but is still being used by prosecutors as so-called evidence in cases alleging the crime of rape.Laws Making It Easier To Obtain Convictions The Courts have long know that rape is an easy allegation to make but one that is hard to disprove. In fact, the biggest threat of being falsely accused of a crime was that of being
accused of rape (until “child molestation” became a significant national issue that flooded the legal system with cases.) The Courts perceived the potential threat of false allegations of rape and fashioned Jury Instructions to inform members of the jury that such allegations were easy to make by the complainant but difficult for the defendant to disprove. Today, this jury instruction is no longer allowed to be given as a result of changes in the law, changes that also mandate giving a very different set of instructions.Jury InstructionsThe judge now informs the jury that 1) an allegation of rape does not require any evidence of corroboration; 2) there is no requirement for medical evidence; 3) there is no requirement for DNA evidence; and 4) there is no requirement for a second witness. In short, there is no requirement for obtaining a conviction other than the bare allegation made by a complainant. Even the manner in which the jury is selected is tainted with this attitude that evidence does not matter.
Prosecutors can demand that during the selection process, each perspective juror must agree that he/she would not require corroboration of a crime. If the juror disagrees with this demand, he/she can be excused.Rape Shield LawsConsensual sex is still legal. Being able to prove consent, however, has become more difficult for the defendant. For example, if a man meets a women at a bar and has sex with her that night and later she claims that she was raped, the man use to be able to introduce evidence to help establish a pattern of consensual sexual behavior on the woman’s part. That might be the testimony by witnesses that the women routinely comes to the bar every night, engages a man’s companionship, and then goes home and has sexual relations. Such evidence is highly relevant to show the sex on the night in question was consensual. This type of evidence is no longer admissible.Victims’ rights advocates were rightly concerned with legal strategies that put the victim’s
personal life on trial. Unfortunately, highly relevant evidence that can protect an innocent defendant is no longer allowed because politics has obscured justice and powerful lobbies have helped to pass what is now called “Rape Shield Laws.” Under the Rape Shield Laws, a defendant in today’s courtroom is forbidden to introduce the prior sexual conduct of the complainant on the issue of consent. (Like the example above) And yet, no one has ever successfully shown that the evidence of prior sexual conduct is not relevant in determining consent.
While the Rape Shield Laws were intended to encourage more women to come forward and testify, it simply has made it easier to falsely accuse and convict an innocent individual.In 1998 the California legislature passed Evidence Code § 1108 that further crippled a defendant’s ability to remain innocent in the eyes of the jury until proven guilty. The new code section allows the prosecution to introduce allegations made by other women allegedly assaulted on previous occasions by the defendant to prove that a rape occurred in the currently charged offense.However, no corroborative evidence is required to introduce these alleged crimes. There does not have to be a conviction. Nor does there have to exist a criminal charge or even a prior police report. The uncorroborated word of a single individual is sufficient.In a backlash meant to protect victims of rape, the legislature is creating new victims by keeping out the sexual history of the complainant on the issue of consent, and allowing into evidence the sexual history of the defendant. This is shear politics and not based upon any rational grounds of relevancy or fair play. Such legislation is systematically making it easier to obtain convictions, and while those guilty of rape should be convicted, those who are falsely accused must be givenback the right to defend themselves adequately in a court of law.
i used this search engine and typed my name. my name is fucking common in my country/language and it didn’t come up. shows how reliable it is.
Not due to controversial opinions, but due to a false rape allegation. That’s something the media won’t allow you to know, of course. Some guy on youtube talks about it though, so you should watch the stupid videos I post and try to refute them so I can post more, and we’ll (at least, I’ll) continue for about 20 pages.
Yeah, but her name is in English. Or supposed to be anyway.
those are some dirty fucking prosecutors in this story… that’s all i really have to say so far, speechless by this.
moral of the story… don’t settle for hood rats/drug addict!!!