• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Man Falsely Convicted of Rape to Get $75

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
6,083
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ion-31-years-jail-article-1.2909683?cid=bitly
A Tennessee man released from prison after a wrongful conviction put him away for 31 years is fighting for an exoneration case that could grant him $1 million in compensation.

Lawrence McKinney, 60, of Memphis, Tenn., was convicted of rape and burglary in 1978 and was sentenced to prison for 115 years. He was released in 2009 after DNA evidence ruled him out as a suspect in the case.

After his release, McKinney was issued $75, and he could be eligible for up to $1 million in compensation if the Tennessee Parole Board hears his exoneration case, which has been denied twice already.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This will be a tough one. Wrongly convicted of rape, but the guy is black, so some internal problems may pop up for some here.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,008
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
This will be a tough one. Wrongly convicted of rape, but the guy is black, so some internal problems may pop up for some here.

Yes, on the one hand, women don't lie about rape. On the other hand, blacks are oppressed.

Of course, it is impossible that a victim could be mistaken about the identity of an attacker. That never happens. Eye witness testimony is always 100%, especially from traumatized victims.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Good ole Derec, if a man isn't guilty of a rape, that means the woman is lying about being raped... not that she was raped by another person. I suppose the DNA evidence of rape was a lie too?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,835
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Of course, it is impossible that a victim could be mistaken about the identity of an attacker. That never happens. Eye witness testimony is always 100%, especially from traumatized victims.
She should still be at least civilly liable, even if she is just mistaken.

- - - Updated - - -

Good ole Derec, if a man isn't guilty of a rape, that means the woman is lying about being raped... not that she was raped by another person. I suppose the DNA evidence of rape was a lie too?

There is no such thing as "DNA evidence of rape". DNA deposited during consensual sex and rape is identical.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
This will be a tough one. Wrongly convicted of rape, but the guy is black, so some internal problems may pop up for some here.

More likely to be problems for leftists who want reparations for this wronged black man, but also generally want to lower the standards of evidence for rape to the point where wrongful convictions are guaranteed to increase.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
She should still be at least civilly liable, even if she is just mistaken.

- - - Updated - - -

Good ole Derec, if a man isn't guilty of a rape, that means the woman is lying about being raped... not that she was raped by another person. I suppose the DNA evidence of rape was a lie too?

There is no such thing as "DNA evidence of rape". DNA deposited during consensual sex and rape is identical.

Why should she be civilly liable? She is not the person who prosecuted, convicted, or jailed the man. The State did that and it is the State who owes him compensation.

If there is evidence she lied on the stand, we have remedies for that. The "should be civilly liable" is just another bullying tactic to intimidate rape victims and it ranks right up there with asking if she ever had sex with other men.

This kind of nonsense never comes up in bank robbery or purse snatching trials.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This will be a tough one. Wrongly convicted of rape, but the guy is black, so some internal problems may pop up for some here.

More likely to be problems for leftists who want reparations for this wronged black man, but also generally want to lower the standards of evidence for rape to the point where wrongful convictions are guaranteed to increase.
Good point. Leftists want all rape suspects to get life in jail without a trial.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,095
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
This will be a tough one. Wrongly convicted of rape, but the guy is black, so some internal problems may pop up for some here.

Yes, on the one hand, women don't lie about rape. On the other hand, blacks are oppressed.
The woman did not lie about being raped. Another man was also convicted of the rape as well. She was mistaken about McKinney but not the other assailant (whose DNA did match the stains on the bed linen).
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,415
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Please don't try to derail Derec's misogyny with facts.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
More likely to be problems for leftists who want reparations for this wronged black man, but also generally want to lower the standards of evidence for rape to the point where wrongful convictions are guaranteed to increase.
Good point. Leftists want all rape suspects to get life in jail without a trial.

Their presumption that wrongful accusations are extremely rare combined with supporting standards of evidence lower than "beyond reasonable doubt" make a trial a farce and guarantee additional wrongful convictions.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,095
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Good point. Leftists want all rape suspects to get life in jail without a trial.

Their presumption that wrongful accusations are extremely rare combined with supporting standards of evidence lower than "beyond reasonable doubt" make a trial a farce and guarantee additional wrongful convictions.
Can you point to some actual "leftists" that wish to reduce the standards of evidence for criminal trials?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Their presumption that wrongful accusations are extremely rare combined with supporting standards of evidence lower than "beyond reasonable doubt" make a trial a farce and guarantee additional wrongful convictions.
Can you point to some actual "leftists" that wish to reduce the standards of evidence for criminal trials?

Just look on here for examples. Too hard to convict for rape? We need to make it easier to get a conviction. The only way to do that is to lower the standards.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Can you point to some actual "leftists" that wish to reduce the standards of evidence for criminal trials?

Just look on here for examples. Too hard to convict for rape? We need to make it easier to get a conviction. The only way to do that is to lower the standards.

How does that work? Do we go from "reasonable doubt" to "vague suspicion"?

If more convictions are the goal, the way to do that is better police work and better prosecutors.

I actually know who was wrongfully convicted and spent 16 years in prison for rape. The case was fairly simple. On a summer night, a man climbed in the open bedroom window of a 13 year old girl. He raped the girl and then left with her transistor radio. A few blocks away, he dropped the radio. Another man comes along and finds the radio. A few minutes later, he is stopped and questioned by police. They take him to the victims house, where she identifies her radio, and the man in the car as her attacker. The man is convicted on this evidence.

Years later, DNA shows he is not the rapist. The real rapist has been running around free for 16 years. The victim, who is now 30 years old still insists she identified the correct man.

Wrongful convictions are not the result of vindictive women. They are the result of incomplete and incompetent investigations.
 

RavenSky

The Doctor's Wife
Staff member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
10,705
Location
Miami, Florida
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Can you point to some actual "leftists" that wish to reduce the standards of evidence for criminal trials?

Just look on here for examples. Too hard to convict for rape? We need to make it easier to get a conviction. The only way to do that is to lower the standards.

"On here"? As in this board? Then it should be easy for you to prove your claim. Quotes with links now.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,636
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
I havent seen that, but what i have seen is masculinists frothing at the mouth over the idea of affirmative consent. In this forum. And when that came up, i said men ought not grab by the crotch to determine if she wants it. Months later, we hear about how Trump is a pussy grabber and yet he still gets elected. Because of where society is in the spectrum of this issue.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Just look on here for examples. Too hard to convict for rape? We need to make it easier to get a conviction. The only way to do that is to lower the standards.

How does that work? Do we go from "reasonable doubt" to "vague suspicion"?

If more convictions are the goal, the way to do that is better police work and better prosecutors.

I actually know who was wrongfully convicted and spent 16 years in prison for rape. The case was fairly simple. On a summer night, a man climbed in the open bedroom window of a 13 year old girl. He raped the girl and then left with her transistor radio. A few blocks away, he dropped the radio. Another man comes along and finds the radio. A few minutes later, he is stopped and questioned by police. They take him to the victims house, where she identifies her radio, and the man in the car as her attacker. The man is convicted on this evidence.

Years later, DNA shows he is not the rapist. The real rapist has been running around free for 16 years. The victim, who is now 30 years old still insists she identified the correct man.

Wrongful convictions are not the result of vindictive women. They are the result of incomplete and incompetent investigations.

Which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I realize there will be mistaken eyewitness IDs. So long as the appearance is reasonably similar that's simply a symptom of the fact that life isn't perfect and I'm not Derec, I don't believe a mistaken ID warrants punishment.

The case you describe does bother me, though--16 years ago they had DNA testing.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,278
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
How does that work? Do we go from "reasonable doubt" to "vague suspicion"?

If more convictions are the goal, the way to do that is better police work and better prosecutors.

I actually know who was wrongfully convicted and spent 16 years in prison for rape. The case was fairly simple. On a summer night, a man climbed in the open bedroom window of a 13 year old girl. He raped the girl and then left with her transistor radio. A few blocks away, he dropped the radio. Another man comes along and finds the radio. A few minutes later, he is stopped and questioned by police. They take him to the victims house, where she identifies her radio, and the man in the car as her attacker. The man is convicted on this evidence.

Years later, DNA shows he is not the rapist. The real rapist has been running around free for 16 years. The victim, who is now 30 years old still insists she identified the correct man.

Wrongful convictions are not the result of vindictive women. They are the result of incomplete and incompetent investigations.

Which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I realize there will be mistaken eyewitness IDs. So long as the appearance is reasonably similar that's simply a symptom of the fact that life isn't perfect and I'm not Derec, I don't believe a mistaken ID warrants punishment.

The case you describe does bother me, though--16 years ago they had DNA testing.

See, this is how mistakes creep in. You have read Bronzage's statement "Years later, DNA shows he is not the rapist. The real rapist has been running around free for 16 years", and assumed that this tells you that the offence was committed sixteen years ago. But in fact, the statement says that the DNA test that exonerated the accused man took place 16 years after his imprisonment. This is not sufficient information for us to say for sure when either the offence or the exoneration occurred - only that these events were sixteen years apart. But you have assumed that you know. Just as the jury assumed that they had sufficient evidence to convict the accused.

The evidence presented by Mr Zeage allows us to deduce that the conviction probably (but not definitely) occurred some time before the widespread use of DNA evidence in rape trials, which began in the late 1980s; And that the exoneration must have occurred after 1985, which is the earliest date at which the technology used to exonerate became available. It doesn't allow us to be any more precise about the timing of either event.

The earliest possible date for the conviction is therefore mid-1969, and the latest possible date is late 2000, with conviction dates prior to about 1990 slightly more plausible than those after that date, given that DNA testing had become routine in rape cases by the early 1990s.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,835
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I don't believe a mistaken ID warrants punishment.
I agree that a mistake does not warrant criminal punishment, but why should not there be civil liability? If a driver makes a mistake and causes an accident he is (usually through insurance) liable for any damages. That does not hinge on the accident being deliberately caused.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,835
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Their presumption that wrongful accusations are extremely rare combined with supporting standards of evidence lower than "beyond reasonable doubt" make a trial a farce and guarantee additional wrongful convictions.
Can you point to some actual "leftists" that wish to reduce the standards of evidence for criminal trials?

These two clowns certainly do. In fact, they want to bring it all the way down to "preponderance of the evidence". Scary stuff.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,095
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I don't believe a mistaken ID warrants punishment.
I agree that a mistake does not warrant criminal punishment, but why should not there be civil liability? If a driver makes a mistake and causes an accident he is (usually through insurance) liable for any damages. That does not hinge on the accident being deliberately caused.
The possibility of civil awards based on honest mistakes can only serve to reduce the number of reported crimes. Interestingly, you are not advocating civil damages against the police, the prosecutors or the jurors. They all made mistakes as well. Not on purpose either.

Hmmm.
 

fast

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
5,293
Location
South Carolina
Basic Beliefs
Christian
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ion-31-years-jail-article-1.2909683?cid=bitly
A Tennessee man released from prison after a wrongful conviction put him away for 31 years is fighting for an exoneration case that could grant him $1 million in compensation.

Lawrence McKinney, 60, of Memphis, Tenn., was convicted of rape and burglary in 1978 and was sentenced to prison for 115 years. He was released in 2009 after DNA evidence ruled him out as a suspect in the case.

After his release, McKinney was issued $75, and he could be eligible for up to $1 million in compensation if the Tennessee Parole Board hears his exoneration case, which has been denied twice already.
Seems there should be some kind of unantiquated non-hearing needed automatic compensation a bit higher than an unbelievably low amount of $75 when being released in exonerated fashion from a wrongful conviction that took away of such magnitude ones life of freedom--at the hands of the friggin' state no less.

And for those that want to inject race, at least thrice that for whites and twice that for others, hmmm?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I realize there will be mistaken eyewitness IDs. So long as the appearance is reasonably similar that's simply a symptom of the fact that life isn't perfect and I'm not Derec, I don't believe a mistaken ID warrants punishment.

The case you describe does bother me, though--16 years ago they had DNA testing.

See, this is how mistakes creep in. You have read Bronzage's statement "Years later, DNA shows he is not the rapist. The real rapist has been running around free for 16 years", and assumed that this tells you that the offence was committed sixteen years ago. But in fact, the statement says that the DNA test that exonerated the accused man took place 16 years after his imprisonment. This is not sufficient information for us to say for sure when either the offence or the exoneration occurred - only that these events were sixteen years apart. But you have assumed that you know. Just as the jury assumed that they had sufficient evidence to convict the accused.

The evidence presented by Mr Zeage allows us to deduce that the conviction probably (but not definitely) occurred some time before the widespread use of DNA evidence in rape trials, which began in the late 1980s; And that the exoneration must have occurred after 1985, which is the earliest date at which the technology used to exonerate became available. It doesn't allow us to be any more precise about the timing of either event.

The earliest possible date for the conviction is therefore mid-1969, and the latest possible date is late 2000, with conviction dates prior to about 1990 slightly more plausible than those after that date, given that DNA testing had become routine in rape cases by the early 1990s.

Look more carefully--it says she's 30--adding up the timeline it must be recent events. Now, it's possible that he's actually quoting something and those aren't his words but if so it should have been marked as a quote.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't believe a mistaken ID warrants punishment.
I agree that a mistake does not warrant criminal punishment, but why should not there be civil liability? If a driver makes a mistake and causes an accident he is (usually through insurance) liable for any damages. That does not hinge on the accident being deliberately caused.

The driver is civilly punished for making a mistake that he should have been able to do a better job.

Perfect eyewitness identifications are asking more than we are capable of, we don't punish drivers for failing to do the superhuman to avoid an accident. So long as it's a reasonable mistake there should be no liability, period.
 

RavenSky

The Doctor's Wife
Staff member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
10,705
Location
Miami, Florida
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I don't believe a mistaken ID warrants punishment.
I agree that a mistake does not warrant criminal punishment, but why should not there be civil liability? If a driver makes a mistake and causes an accident he is (usually through insurance) liable for any damages. That does not hinge on the accident being deliberately caused.

Then why are you having a hissy fit melt down about this case: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?9976-Chicago-makes-more-thug-families-millionaires
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,095
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Anyone else think the original sentence of 110 years for a rape and burglary seemed excessive?

When this guy was sentenced, the average sentence for rape in the US was about ten years (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/cjusew96/isl.cfm) and for burglars it was about 4 years.

Question: What was his past record?
As far as I know, he had none. There is no mention of a past record I can find in any reports. So, unless you have evidence there was a past record, it seems his sentence was excessive.
 
Top Bottom