She should go to jail for fraud (the lawsuit money) and at the very least perjury for giving false testimony. If I were Banks I'd be suing her in civil court as well.

I think the LA Times followed it up with this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/woman-who-recanted-rape-claim-likely-to-keep-750000-settlement.html

Woman who recanted rape claim likely to keep $750,000 settlement

A day after a former high school football star had his rape conviction dismissed, attention has focused on the woman who recanted the sexual assault claim she made 10 years ago.

Wanetta Gibson was a high school sophomore when she accused Brian Banks of raping her at Long Beach Poly High School. She and her family sued the school, receiving a $750,000 settlement, and Banks spent five years in prison after pleading no contest to forcible rape.

Even though a judge Thursday tossed out the rape charge, it remains far from certain if Gibson, 24, will face any consequences.

Banks, now 26, said he wants to put the ordeal behind him and has not considered any legal action against Gibson. L.A. prosecutors have also said they have no plans to charge her for making false accusations, saying it would be a tough case to prove.

Legal experts noted it could be difficult for the Long Beach school district and its insurer to get the settlement back.

Then there is the reality of Gibson’s life.

Court records suggest she has few assets: She received public assistance for a time and her children, ages 4 and 5, still do, according to two suits brought by the county in an attempt to collect child support. Gibson, who could not be reached for comment, was ordered initially to pay a $600 a month toward their support. But in the last year, county officials said she didn’t have to pay anything, citing a lack of income and employment.

According to Banks and his private investigator, Gibson refused to tell prosecutors she had lied, so that she wouldn't have to return the money she and her family had won in court.

She also said she feared it would affect her relationship with her children, Banks' attorney alleged in court papers.

The statute of limitations for making a false claim is four years, but experts say it could restart when a previously hidden crime is discovered. In this case, Gibson testified in 2003 during Banks’ preliminary hearing but recanted her accusation last year. “No, he did not rape me,” she told Banks and his private investigator in a recorded conversation.

“The prosecution can say that we only learned last year that the crime of perjury occurred and therefore we are still within the statute of limitations,” Loyola Law professor Stan Goldman said.

The fact that Gibson was a juvenile when she initially made her accusation poses a potential complication, as does the fact that she has since recanted her recantation, but Goldman said the large monetary settlement she received might make charging her a priority to prosecutors trying to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Police in Long Beach said there is no official investigation into Gibson’s conduct, but officers are “reviewing the matter” and “will be in consultation with the district attorney’s office following the review,” spokeswoman Lisa Massacani said.

-- Rosanna Xia and Harriet Ryan

I've learned over the years to not to take the claims of child sexual abuse and rape against a "popular" figure without about a pound of salt.

The most recent one was Dominique Strauss-Kahn (director IMF). Once the investigators started to truly look at it the case started falling apart. People that rich, that have fantasies, can buy them.

But in this case you have a 17-18 year old kid, who probably did have sex with her, going up against police and prosecutors who are allowed to lie. Most likely the worst damage was done before he secured counsel.

Rule #1: Never talk to the cops without a lawyer.
Rule #2: Never talk to the prosecutors without independent legal counsel.
Rule #3: If you are being asked something by legal authorities, inquire where your legal counsel is.
Rule #4: "I respectfully decline to answer the. question based upon my constitutional rights as guaranteed to me by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution" is not an admission of guilt or a declaration of innocence.
Rule #5: Learn to keep your mouth shut around police, prosecutors, jailers and fellow inmates. They are all out to screw you.

The shame of it is hot this kid took a plea and had to admit guilt out of fear that a jury was going to convict him and put him away. She should have that same fear now. She was more worried about giving away money than giving a man his good name back. Throw away the key.

I feel bad for this guy.

But what the fuck?.

I don't see why this is something for which all Californians should be expected to compensate him.

> The most recent one was Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Jimperz, consider this.

"I don't see why this is something for which all Californians should be expected to compensate him."

I agree, Crid. Although, we live in a world where people stub a toe and expect compensation. This girl won a settlement. Good luck collecting it though. What does she have that could even be garnished? Future earnings? State of California.

Banks still talks about the NFL as if it were a reality. I hope he still has the talent to go play and get a paycheck and endorsements. That should save the taxpayers.

The prosecutor is your employee, and you are liable for his mistake.

Was Banks guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Evidently not, but that didn't protect him from pleading no contest, presumably in return for a lesser sentence. It's a tough situation. There were no witnesses, and the word of the alleged victim was evidently enough.

I'm sure there are other innocents in prison, and guilty free.

> I don't like it, Crid, but there seems
> to have been a miscarriage of justice
> here. No DNA evidence and the girl was
> still believed.

Amy, I am going to need your reply to this email comment, specifically these two questions:

[1.] Why does a "miscarriage of justice" mean that every Californian has to pony up some money?

[2.] Has every (taxpaying) Californian promised all the other Californians that There shall be no "miscarriage of justice"? (I don't remember signing that paperwork when I crossed the state line back in '89.)

[2a.] The woman lied. Did I ever guarantee anyone that women won't lie?

Really, really want your feedback on this. It's precisely the root of our financial nightmare: This casual daydream that if we all just chip in, then horrible problems can be made do go away... And we've got millions of horrible problems.

Saying you "don't like it" doesn't cover the problem. Where will the money come from?

> What does she have that could even
> be garnished?

To a certain extent, the breath in her lungs. We should garnish the breath in her lungs. OR, if she's going to be a ward of the state anyway, EVEN DESPITE THIS PAYOUT FROM LONG BEACH, she could be incarcerated such that the expense she brings to the rest of the community is kept to a bare minimum.

Sorry for the busted link: Financial nightmare.

Why does a "miscarriage of justice" mean that every Californian has to pony up some money?

It would be nice to be able to hold the accuser personally responsible. (Indeed, under Jewish law, a person who bears false witness in court is subject to the same penalty the accused would have been given had the lies been believed. Since the lies were believed, Gibson should serve the full sentence.

It would also be nice to be able to hold the "defense" attorney who recommended the plea bargain responsible, but that person seems to have disappeared. At least, Larry Elder hasn't been able to discover who actually represented Banks.

I was under the impression minors were not supposed to be questioned without an adult advocate in the room -- legal counsel, or a parent, or both. This seems to be something honored in the breach. (Bit of personal experience here.) If this rule does not in fact exist, maybe it should; if it does exist, it needs teeth.

Our police, prosecutors, and other officers of the court are granted great power by their employers. With great power comes great responsibility, and we need to demand that officers of the court live up to that responsibility.

If I understand this correctly, she sued the Unified School District and won. Unless the LAUSD is a private entity, it is taxpayer funded. So all Californians were expected to compensate her. And did. Call me cynical,I dont suspect this or any other blog displayed much wailing or gnashing of teeth about it, either. If it was kept on the DL, perhaps we might say "well, we didnt know about it - it was a confidential settlement/court proceeding." Perhaps. You wouldnt have said a damn word about it anyway and you know it.
Now that this man is trying to pull back together some shreds of his life, everybody wants to get all fiscally responsible. This very attitude, ready to open the checkbook, send a man to prison (GIT A ROPE!!!!)then ignore him (and rationalize your dismissal of him) when the mistake is revealed - all because, and only because, a woman hollered "Rape" -that is the largest part of the problem with our broken system.
Jim P., I appreciate your sentiment, and truth be told it is more circumspect than many. But what about when the allegations of rape and/or sexual harassment are made against a figure that is not popular? The "forgotten man",one might say. When one considers that such monumentally rational reasons as covering up affairs/infidelity and other misbehavior, revenge, advantage in court (usually family court) and lets not forget the reason in this case - "she didnt want her mother to know she was sexually active" - top the list for reasons for false rape claims, are you willing to apply that same scrutiny to the case of the little guy as well?
In short, the same presumption of innocence we gladly gave Casey Anthony and so manmy others? Or how about just the same presumption of innocence anyone is entitled to when accused of any (other) crime?
Maybe you are. Your write like a sentient being, I would believe you would. Hundreds of millions - and I'll stand by that figure - do not.

This is who she sued - I confess an ignorance of your geography prevents my saying with authority whether or not Long Beach Schools are part of the LAUSD. However, the point stands. Schools are taxpayer funded. All taxpayers compensated her.

From the Article -
Meanwhile Gibson and her family sued the Long Beach schools. They settled the case for $1.5 million. Gibson's mother, Wanda Rhodes, could not be reached Thursday for comment.

They settled the case for $1.5 million.

She received public assistance for a time and her children, ages 4 and 5, still do, according to two suits brought by the county in an attempt to collect child support. Gibson, who could not be reached for comment, was ordered initially to pay a $600 a month toward their support. But in the last year, county officials said she didn’t have to pay anything, citing a lack of income and employment.

Why was she eligible for public assistance?

Does she have any of the money left?

OR, if she's going to be a ward of the state anyway, EVEN DESPITE THIS PAYOUT FROM LONG BEACH, she could be incarcerated such that the expense she brings to the rest of the community is kept to a bare minimum.

She needs to serve time.

Yes, she recanted. Only AFTER he had served a five year sentence. She needs to serve at least as much time as he did.

And what about his college scholarship to USC? She owes him more than five years.

And she owes us (society at large) much more than five years. She made a mockery of our justice system. She destroyed someone's life and shows no remorse about it. And, worst of all, she contributed one more little tear to the fragile fabric of civilization.

AND she was stupid enough to Facebook friend him.

> Justice, or the State's attempt at it, is
> administered by people acting as agents for
> the people

The community that surrounds you (or lives some distance away) can't be held accountable for every imaginable perspective or outcome in a legal proceeding. The process is therefore constructed to be adversarial; the accused are encouraged to hire their own counsel, right? Law improves life; law doesn't guarantee life, and it never promises to do so. This began with a bogus accusation...

...and I'm not the one who made it. Why am I being made to pay a penalty?

No. This is despicable. This loathsome small-mindedness is exactly what's ruined public affairs.

People can't think of any way to live their lives, or express their virtue or their neediness, besides through government.

Frankly, the guy wants to live his life in the style of his accuser: Make Daddy Government pay for everything, and let someone else worry about the morality.

Kids, Consumer Reports does not do government, OK? There are no competing products to compare for the same reason there are no guarantees for materials or workmanship.

Crid says - law doesn't guarantee life, and it never promises to do so.

And it should not tru to. That way lies madness, to be sure. But to say that means the law, its agents, and the citzens that grant them the authority to act on their behalf are not liable for inexcusable mistakes is to stretch the premise far past the screaming point. You are paying the penalty because you are a member or the public and it was on your behalf and in your name and with YOUR imprimatur that this man was lynched - and if you bristle at my use of the term go back and reread the article. A lynching is exactly what it was - a woman pointed her finger- shit, forget that it was a woman, a CITIZEN pointed their finger at another CITIZEN and said "that person did evil to me." Upon no more evidence and with no further provocation, the state, acting on YOUR behalf, with the power YOU granted them and with YOUR imprimatur set upon this person. It is the 21st century, so he was spared the consequences that would have almost surely befallen him a hundred years ago. But they still took a hell of a shot at ruining his life, and in many ways they have. And they did so without a murmur of disapproval from the public (that public includes you, Crid), to the cheers of many and to the unceasing grousing of a not incosiderable number of victim grooups that it doesn't happen often enough.

Crid says -
Frankly, the guy wants to live his life in the style of his accuser: Make Daddy Government pay for everything,

Again, just a bit of ground is covered between asking for a hand out and demanding compensation for a grievous harm done. If this was a case of hot coffee in the crotch or an accusation of racism because Dananastasia was rejected from the cheerleading squad because she was seven months pregnant and Dananastasia thinks thats "raciss" I would completely agree with you. But power needs checks, and one of the checks on power is the ability to seek recourse from the law to make you whole when that power is used - lets inject a little British understatement here for comedic effect - "inappropriately."
If it smarts in your pocketbook to help this man repair some of the damage, all the while knowing no amount in the world will ever repair all of it, perhaps that is a thought to keep in mind the next time somebody screams for the mob to fall out and get their torches and pitchforks.

Crid says -
let someone else worry about the morality.

Indeed.

Crid,

There are many kinds of miscarriage of justice, jailing a person for five years, is about the worse there can be.

better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer -- Blackstone

it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" -- Franklin

Better for whom? -- Chinese Professor [http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm]

Why should you be made to pay Crid? Because you live in a society, a society you choose to be a part of, a scoiety which elects tough on crime sherriffs and prosecutors based on their campaign slogans and conviction numbers

And a society which votes for legisaltors who make it legal for officers to lie to suspects and bully them into making plea deals by passing 3 stirkes laws so people are willing to plead down to mistomeaners.

You willingly live in a society which does these things, why shouldnt you pitch it when the sum result of your scoiecty fucks someone over?

> You are paying the penalty because you
> are a member or the public and it was
> on your behalf and in your name and
> with YOUR imprimatur that this man
> was lynched -

First of all, fuck that with a stick. Fuck especially your capitalization of YOUR.

Second, the guy was falsely accused. M'kay? Wuzzint me who did that.

Third, the guy was offered a trial by jury of his peers. That's more than most people on this planet get in terms of justice. It's more than most people in history could even dream of. And it's about the most our country promises in terms of justice... But he willfully rejected that opportunity, and the review of evidence by his community that it would have included.

Fourth, he was represented by counsel.

Fifth, there's nothing about a payout to this guy which would in any way diminish the probability of this happening again. Quite the opposite. Who promised you that our justice system would never convict, or exonerate, without error? Are you to prepared to make a payout every time something goes wrong?

I don't think you're that compassionate.

You guys apparently think you're being noble when you chirp about a remedy of "miscarriages"... Because, after all, the melody of your birdsong is someone else's money.

But, y'know, someone else has grown tired of your cowardice.
You wanna help this guy out? Cut him a check yourself. Because that's how compassion, REAL compassion, works.

This guy's behavior has much in common with that of his accuser.

> You willingly live in a society which does
> these things, why shouldnt you pitch it when
> the sum result of your scoiecty
> fucks someone over?

My "scoiecty" didn't fuck someone over... And I wouldn't be responsible of it had. The vast majority of evil in this case was set in motion by this woman and her family.

Crid,

Our society, our justice system was founded on the notion that it's better to let guilty people go free than to jail the innocent.

I am glad you are angered that when society through its prosecutors, judges, and courts put the innocent in jail and it is discovered, that society has to pay a penalty for that.

Perhaps in the future, you and those that are also angered by this, will consider how you choose those prosecutors and judges.

If society had no penalty to pay, how would society learn?

Paying the penalty is right because we took away, unjustly, an innocent man's freedom. And it's right because it closes the feedback loop that keeps society from easily imprisoning other innocents.

If you are worried that the payment to this one guy is an outrage that will break our bank, just think of how you would feel when prosecutors and politicians gang up to throw more innocent people in jail in the name of reelection campaigns and buying votes!

And lujlp, I think that was one of the best things I've ever seen you write. Very well written, thank you!

I can't even comment on this. It's just one of those miscarriages of justice that will never be fixed, now or ever.

> If society had no penalty to pay, how would
> society learn?

Which way to go first? I can't choose. I'll flip a coin.

Tails! OK, Tails first:

Tails— THIS IS NOT A PENALTY. This money, and all the "angered" feeling you imagine to be expressed by it, is being redirected into an emotional cesspool called "other people's wealth." That's more money than you can ever dream of, so you think it's bottomless. You think it's the solution to problems. Most importantly, you think the things you sink into it can't hurt you, Jerry, on an individual level. You're mistaken.

Heads— Do you SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY contend that there's "learning" that's supposed to happen here? What is it? Put it into words. Who's going to learn it? Who's going to teach it? What are the precise failures that the officers of the court made? How should the rest of us have anticipated their failures? If you know so much better than they do what those lessons are, why haven't you explained them? And for the love of Christ, WHY DIDN'T YOU, JERRY, TELL US THIS WOMAN WAS LYING?

Hmmm?

So it turns out you CAN'T put these things into words, right? Because these are vague (and I think foolish) ideas. But you're ready to take money from still MORE people to make yourself feel heroic... You have some very specific dollars in mind. And they are, specifically, not yours.


Petty appeals to ego like this are killing our country. Listen, if you think this guy was wronged, send him a check. From your account and no one else's.

As with his victim, the money awarded will help no one at tremendous expense to many.

Clucking is not compassion. Other people's money is not compassion.

Yeah, I have no idea where you live Crid, but that money we are paying out is very much mine, and I will remember how I paid that out the next time I hear some prosecutor / da / judge run for office on a tough on crime, tough on domestic violence, tough on rape, three strikes position.

As I said three times now, so no more, you're not just barking some strange bootstrappy individualist's message, you're directly going against the very values our justice system was based on, that imprisoning the innocent is so horrendous, we would rather free 100 guilty men, than jail one innocent one.

This is a tragedy and misjustice on so many levels. For one, an innocent man was wrongfully jailed for a crime he didn't commit. Second, when released with the standard "our bad" apology from the state, his reputation is still forever marred in the eyes of society. Third, the women who really are the victims of a horrific rape have to endure not only the hardship of bringing the criminal to justice, but they must also live with a society who is suspicious of their honesty.

I recently read an article her in WA where a father was finally released from prison after 9 years. His daughter had accused him of rape and he was convicted. She suffered some guilt and went to the police, and after investigation they released him. They did not prosecute her, because they were concerned that if she were punished, it might deter other women in similar situations from coming forward. So sad.

Crid says -

Are you to prepared to make a payout every time something goes wrong?

I don't think you're that compassionate.

You guys apparently think you're being noble when you chirp about a remedy of "miscarriages"... Because, after all, the melody of your birdsong is someone else's money.

But, y'know, someone else has grown tired of your cowardice.
You wanna help this guy out? Cut him a check yourself. Because that's how compassion, REAL compassion, works.

To begin with, this isn't about compassion. This is about justice. While one may decide to get semantic about compassion being part of justice, justice remains the over riding issue. If you are seriously going to argue that those, and only those - sickened by this miscarriage of justice should pay to try to make it right, would you also argue that if someone is outraged by say, a real rape, they must go do justice themselves? Stands to reason, Crid- after all, you didn't rape that woman. Or kill that man. Or steal that car. All those outraged about it should form a mob and go make things right and leave you out of it, right? Noone has any business taxing you for the police, the jails, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys. Let them as want something done go do it, because arrest and prosecution of wrongdoers has nuthin to do with you. Right?
This is no different. Wrong has been done. Not only that, the worst kind of wrong - wrong done in the name of justice. What it will ultimately cost society is less than it costs to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate someone.But it will help right the wrong. That is what justice is about. When people can harm each other with impunity and there is no recourse to the law to correct the wrong, there is no society. When the government can arrest and imprison the innocent with impunity there is a police state. You know this. When people or institutions violate other peoples rights, those people or institutions must pay. If they are public institutions, that means the public must pay, and take up their displeasure with the officials the public appointed to administer those institutions. Civics 101.

Further, when someone who has unleashed withering contempt on these pages for those who "squeak about mens rights" to then resort to such a silly argument against making things right for someone who has suffered such grievous harm at the hands of the very system and in one of the primary ways those who "squeak about mens rights" are squeaking about, my mind does turn to images of chickens and roosts. This is a major issue for those who "squeak about mens rights." When you and others like you marginalize those who "squeak about mens rights" and then want to "squeak" about having to pay someone who was railroaded by the system you champion by attacking those who have for years been trying to fix it, well, its kinda hard to either feel sorry for you or take seriously your allegations of "cowardice" on mine - or anyone elses - part.

Having watched the interview with this man, it occurs to me he is handling the loss of 5 years of his life with far more dignity and grace than you are handling the prospect that it may ultimately cost you personally a fraction of a dollar to compensate him for those years.

Finally, as you well know, not being new here, Lujlp has dyslexia as a result of (if memory serves)a cold weather injury. While he and I often disagree, he isn't stupid. Calling him out for misspelling in support of your argument is a cheap shot. As cheap as using "FUCK" gratuitously, as though it is a logical point. It smells of desperation on the part of somepone who has advanced a clearly, laughably untenable position. And as has been famously pointed out -
desperation is a stinky cologne.

If ponying up a fraction of a dollar to this man eats your lunch, I say, on behalf of all Mens Rights Activists, Squeak On It.

"This is a major issue for those who "squeak about mens rights." When you and others like you marginalize those who "squeak about mens rights" and then want to "squeak" about having to pay someone who was railroaded by the system you champion by attacking those who have for years been trying to fix it, well, its kinda hard to either feel sorry for you or take seriously your allegations of "cowardice" on mine - or anyone elses - part."

I hadn't put 2 and 2 together like that, so thanks for pointing that out, you're 1000% right.

Crid has some strange bedfellows.

> This is about justice.

Then why is it being approached as a matter of finance? I assume the guy's coming at us for money, and not to demand that we make specific changes to our jurisprudence.

> All those outraged about it should form
> a mob and go make things right and leave
> you out of it, right?

Some people are not good at irony or sarcasm, and you are one of those people.

> But it will help right the wrong.

No it won't. And if you were certain that it did, you'd be writing your own check.

Also, the first sentence of your fifth paragraph is unreadable.

> Calling him out for misspelling in support
> of your argument is a cheap shot.

Expensive ones sail over his head... It just doesn't matter.

> As cheap as using "FUCK" gratuitously,
> as though it is a logical point.

I like to cuss. If it offends you, don't read.

> I say, on behalf of all Mens Rights
> Activists, Squeak On It.

See, this is kind of about that. M.R. guys want to believe all the evil in the world is Out There, so that others are responsible.

Well, I'm not. Don't give him my money and call it "justice"... Not until the woman who did this to him is suitably punished, and not until you've offered specific improvements (rather than platitudes) to the machinery she exploited.

I really don't think you, or Amy, or Jerry, are up to this.

Five years of life stolen from him by an accuser who lied, two public servant offices, the police and prosecutors, who pursued a man based upon nothing but a say so.

Five years, stolen at the judgement of a government system.

The loss of friendships, family, REPUTATION, a good name ruined and destroyed, years of social connections, relationships, simple pleasures, all snatched away. Her lie was the impetus, but it was the will and choice of our representatives in the law that put this man in jail.

It is we who hired and paid those men, you may absolve yourself Crid, of "personal" responsibility, since you did not personally select them. But you pay for the system that ruined years of an innocent mans life.

You didn't personally see to his ruin.

But that doesn't alleviate the public burden of restoring him to the world with a measure of just compensation. If he could be given his years back, then I would say forget money, give him those years, but you can't give that back. You can't rebuild his lost relationships, the lost work opportunities, you can't undo the trauma and horror of his experience. I'm sure if you had some magic McGuffin that could do that, you would, as would I, or anyone with any hint of reason in their brain.

But none of that is possible.

Instead the public system must do the best it can to compensate the blatant injustice done in the name of justice. And that requires the only tool the public has at its disposal. Money.

Your money. Tax payer dollars of the same kind that sent this man to jail for a crime he did not commit, that will forever have people who know his story wondering "what if?".

It doesn't right the wrong done, but if the big complaint here is that tax payer dollars are being used to compensate the people that tax payer dollars ruined, I would say good Crid, that your priorities are sorely misplaced.

Instead shouldn't you be railing against the tax payer dollars wasted upon baseless prosecution of evidence free accusations? Shouldn't you be horrified by the fact that reckless prosecutors are abusing the power your money gave to them, and expecting you to be grateful for it? Shouldn't your outrage be placed more upon the people who use the legal system to abuse the public, instead of those who are being compensated after being abused by it?

Any contempt heaped upon this man, is as just and right as the liar who accused him, or the public servants who abused him to pad their stats.

> Calling him out for misspelling in support
> of your argument is a cheap shot.

Expensive ones sail over his head... It just doesn't matter

First off Wolfman thank you, secondly dont bother, Crid seems quite proud of his record of persecuting people for physical hadicaps. I say let him continue and broadcast they type of man he really is

Thirdly the dyslexia in from brith, the nearly freezing to death mildly damaged my hypothamus leaving my body's core temp at a flat 96 degrees, I occasionally go for days without sleep, but dont get tired as I no longer have a normal circadian rhythm. You should find some of the posts I make a few hours before I crash after one of those episodes, I never rember the last few hours as my cognive functions start to decline very entertainingly before I fall asleep.

And lastly the reason crid uses cheap shot is beacuse his 'expensive' ones are comprised of spun glass and glossamr threads of bullshit which cant stand up to household dust let alone the force of a simple rejoinder

> if the big complaint here is that tax payer
> dollars are being used to compensate the people
> that tax payer dollars ruined

"Tax payer dollars" didn't ruin this guy. You're being reductive and self-congratulatory, and you're doing it with other people's money. You'd be wrong in any culture in human history... And even the mighty United States of America can no longer afford such flighty, thoughtless indulgence.

> Instead shouldn't you be railing against
> the tax payer dollars wasted upon baseless
> prosecution of evidence free accusations?

Well, I can rail against whatever I want. There are 24 big 'ol hours in each and every day, and the days come one after the next, so you needn't worry that I haven't given thought to your favorite point... It's probably just that it has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make.

The two specific questions I have for you, which no one has yet found the time to answer. Think of them as a pop quiz:

You paid off the rape victim, and then you paid off the guy who was not a rapist. Are you going to pay off everyone who can make a case that justice wasn't served at some point in their lives? Yes? No? Will their be a sunset to your munificence, a statute of limitations?... Or is it endless, back through the mists of time?

If you're so very certain you know how and where these public employees (let alone the accuser) made mistakes, why can't you say so? Specifically? Why, for the love of God, why, if this is so obvious to you, why couldn't you stop it from happening this time? Why can't you offer instruction to those who'll hold the job next time?


˙sǝɥɔılɔ puɐlʎǝusıp ʎluo 'ǝɔıʇsnɾ ɟo ʇuǝɯǝʌoɹdɯı ǝɥʇ ɹoɟ sɐǝpı lnɟƃuıuɐǝɯ ou ǝʌɐɥ noʎ ǝsnɐɔǝq [˙ᄅ]

˙ɔıʇuǝɥʇnɐ uɐɥʇ ɹǝɥʇɐɹ ɔıʇɐɯɐɹpolǝɯ puɐ lɐuoıʇɐnʇıs sı uoıssɐdɯoɔ ɹnoʎ ǝsnɐɔǝq [˙Ɩ]

:sɹǝʍsu∀

And, for the record, I'm completely surprised by you people. I thought this one was a slam-dunk. But apparently, once you've decided to be head-tilty and compassionate, no lawsuit is to inappropriate, right? That's how it worked for his accuser....

"...the guy was offered a trial by jury of his peers."

Crid, that is a misconception. Yes, he had the right to a trial. Did you know that hardly anyone entitled to a trial actually gets one? It's something way down below 10% - I don't remember the number, but it's tiny. Why? Because the prosecutors and courts play this little game of blackmail: "accept this sentence that we so generously offer you, or we will throw the book at you."

In this kid's case, he was gambling 5 years against 41. He was innocent, he knew he was innocent, but he (or his counsel) had to weigh the odds. Five years, you still have most of your life left. After 41 years - well, that's pretty much the rest of his life. If he had forced the prosecutors to try him, that's what he would have been risking.

Blackmail, plain and simple. Justice is nowhere in sight. And the prosecutors got to put another notch in their statistics.

The kid has been wronged. One can discuss who should compensate him. In this discussion, one should not overlook the officials involved in his case: they should be personally liable for this miscarriage of justice. Might make them a little bit less eager the next time...

"I confess an ignorance of your geography prevents my saying with authority whether or not Long Beach Schools are part of the LAUSD."

They are not--they are in the Long Beach USD. The LAUSD is essentially only the City of Los Angeles, not the whole county.

We gotta 'nother one! Do we have to pay up again? Well, we did....

http://www.kusi.com/story/18605516/judge-michael-crowe-friend-factually-innocent-of-killing-stephanie-crowe-in-1998

Via Balko

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannndd another

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120528/NEWS01/305230141/Possible-new-suspect-emerges-after-man-spends-nearly-five-years-jail-waiting-murder-trial?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

Via Balko

Amy, I'm going no need a special log page on your blog to remind people of how often this happens. Doesn't have to be anything special... Big bright red font over navy blue, maybe, with some Javascript to sound a klaxon and make the screen flash everytime there's a new entry.

No problem, Crid, thanks for the reminders, will be happy to mark you down as objectively pro-coerced confessions and objectively anti-speedy trials and holding the position there is nothing society can't do to you that requires even an apology much less compensation.

>> Are you going to pay off everyone who can make a case that justice wasn't served at some point in their lives?

Not everyone, just every single time a prosecuter convicts an innocent person. Every single time. But to be honest, the money should come out of the responsible prosecuter's budget.

>>If you're so very certain you know how and where these public employees (let alone the accuser) made mistakes, why can't you say so?

Well, can't name all the mistakes, because I'm not all knowing, but the primary mistake is prosecuting cases without substantial evidence.

> will be happy to mark you down as objectively
> pro-coerced confessions and objectively
> anti-speedy trials

I believe you; I believe you are that naive and petulant.

> Well, can't name all the mistakes, because I'm
> not all knowing

Then what the fuck are you talking about? How on Earth can you justify taking money at gunpoint (which is how taxation works) from strangers who know nothing of this case to give to this kid? You've conceded that you don't have a shred of moral authority... What the fuck are you doing?

I'll tell you what you're doing. (Again.) You're assuming that tax money comes out of nowhere, instead of from the pockets of decent people who worked hard to earn it so that they can feed their children. You're regarding the world with a kindergartner's shallow understanding: If everybody just gives a little, then we can pay for whatever we want, because everybody has all the money in the world! Your breezy chatter about "substantial evidence" is hollow, and you're completely unconcerned with the workings of the criminal justice system.

Mostly, you just want to hope that if anything bad or unfair ever happens to you, there'll be a big payday at the end of it.

That's how this 'rape victim' lived her life, too.

She's pathetic. Right?

...but the primary mistake is prosecuting cases without substantial evidence.

Most criminal cases are prosecuted without "substantial" evidence. Eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence are the bulk of the evidence in most trials.

And neither of those are what anyone would call "substantial." Any cop or prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is unreliable at best and circumstantial evidence is just that.

Television has us all believing that there is "substantial" evidence from DNA and fibers and trace in every case.

That's not true in the real world. Television also tells us that criminals always confess like Scooby-Doo villians when unmasked. They don't. They argue their innocence through their trial and imprisonment. I read an interview with a prison warden who said there wasn't a guilty man in his prison. They were all framed.

In this case, there is no hint of impropriety on the part of the prosecutor. He didn't hide exculpatory evidence or manufacture evidence. He looked at the evidence he had and prosecuted accordingly. For cryin' out loud, the victim herself identified him.

That she was not a victim emerged later ... from her own stupidity.

> In this case, there...

I love, LOVE it when other people do the reading and it turns out I'm right.

There's just no excuse for penalizing the rest of California.

"> will be happy to mark you down as objectively
> pro-coerced confessions and objectively
> anti-speedy trials

I believe you; I believe you are that naive and petulant."

It's not that I'm petulant or naive. Just that you seem to propose no way to penalize the state or provide disincentives to coercing confessions or delaying trials.

Thus, whatever is not forbidden is mandatory.

"Clucking is not compassion. Other people's money is not compassion."

Other people's money? Tyhisisn't other people's money - this is the money of the people who paid to have this man locked up. And they paid to have him locked up on shoddy evidence, the word of a lying skank. They should have been more careful.

That adversarial bit yoyu talk about - this isn't about the prosecutor. this is about the incoppetent judge and a bigoted jury. Those citizens sent him to jail for nothing, and they were acting in the name of al the citizens in the state.

And then they and their state should turn around and twist the money back out of this liar. You're a free market type - what do you think the price for her various fresh organs would be on E-bay? She owes that to the state, and whatever someone can cahrge for renting her coochie out by the throw. she owes all of that to the people she duped.

"Then what the fuck are you talking about? How on Earth can you justify taking money at gunpoint (which is how taxation works) from strangers who know nothing of this case to give to this kid?"

"Oh we didn't knoooow!!!! Waaah..... "

You people of California were willing to put a man away for years. You fucking well should have found out what was going on in your court system. Maybe a little pain like this will get you interested enough to show some due diligence.

> Just that you seem to propose no way to
> penalize the state

I'm not interested in penalizing the state. I've not been given any reason to think the state did anything wrong...

...Except the outcome. And that's enough for you! You won't tell us the details, but apparently a magical Disney Grandaddy appeared to you early in life —old white guy with a long grey beard in a cloud with tingly music and and Uncle Sam hat— and promised you that the constitution meant that nothing could every go wrong with criminal justice, no matter how venal the conduct of our citizenry.

But that's not how criminal justice is, Jerry. It's the best we can do. (It also happens to be the best anyone has ever done.) But that's all. Bad things happen when evil people pursue villainy.

> or provide disincentives to coercing
> confessions or delaying trials.

SFAIK there was no coerced confession and not delay in his trial. Is Banks contending that there was?

PS- Don't use "thus". It's silly.


> this is the money of the people who paid
> to have this man locked up

No, the people paid for an investigation and a prosecution in good faith. How come you guys can't describe these events without twisting things around?

...this is about ... a bigoted jury. Those citizens sent him to jail for nothing, and they were acting in the name of al the citizens in the state.

There was no jury.

Banks plead guilty for a reduced sentence - on the advice of his attorney.

Yeah, regarding his public defender, until such time as the public defenders opffice has the same funding and investigative resorces as the prosecution, I'd hardly call them an adequate defence

Tax payer dollars DID ruin this man.

It paid for the system, it paid for the building, it paid for the prison system and the guards, it paid for the process, and it paid for the benefit to prosecutors who pad their stats. Tax payer dollars paid for every single brick in the walls that imprisoned this man.

And remember, it was HIS MONEY too. He was a tax payer.

You can rail against whatever you want, and look as foolish as you like while doing it.

That doesn't make you right, just loud and loudly wrong in this case.

------

That the rape victims as paid off surprises the hell out of me. And she should not have been paid off in the first place. The public was not responsible for what happened to her, nor were public servants the perpetrators.

But to answer your question, who should the public pay off?

The people that the public wrongfully injure or imprison or destroy. Those whose property is wrongfully seized, whose lives are wrongly ruined, by the public will and their collective servants. That is all.

I can tell you exactly where their mistake was Crid, and you should be able to as well.

Making an arrest without any evidence. Both police and prosecutors have a hand in this.

The accuser made a mistake in fucking lying about what happened. Duh.

To stop it from happening should be very simple:

STOP ARRESTING AND CHARGING PEOPLE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Do not conduct any interrogations without recording the session on video.

SO how would you have handled this Crid? Just let the guy go with an "Oops…our bad dude."

Injustice by the system must lead to recompense by the system, and those who abuse it must be locked away without mercy. Why are you more outraged by payment to the innocent man wrongly accused, than the lying little bitch that started the whole process?

> this is about the incoppetent judge and
> a bigoted jury.

How does bigotry play into this?

Is there anything to this at all, or is it just that everything is about race all the time just because?

...regarding his public defender....

Did he have a public defender?

According to the LA Times, "His mother, Leomia Myers, believed him, and said she sold her condo and her car to pay for his defense."

Making an arrest without any evidence. Both police and prosecutors have a hand in this.

To stop it from happening should be very simple:

STOP ARRESTING AND CHARGING PEOPLE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Huh?

The police didn't just arrest him.

He was arrested and charged based on her accusation. It was solid enough that the police and prosecutor thought they had a case.

He admitted they fooled around but said it was consensual. She said it wasn't.

She was a sophmore and he was a senior; and a middle linebacker on the football team (in other words, a big enough guy to intimidate her and pressure her into doing something she didn't want to do).

While her account of the attack changed a bit over the course of the investigation, it didn't change substantively (so the minor changes in details didn't cause the investigators to suspect that she was lying).

Shortly after the alleged attack, she e-mailed a friend with the accusation. After the case was closed, she told the friend she had lied, but the friend did not convey this information to the police.

The accuser made a mistake in fucking lying about what happened.

She didn't make a mistake!

She didn't get the date wrong or identify the wrong guy. She willfully lied!

She caused an innocent man to spend five years of his life in prison and another five years as a registered offender.

That she was a child when she did this does not excuse ten years of silence.

The prosecutor did not cause this. She is the sole and only cause of this miscarriage of justice.

She owes Banks ten years of his life and the rest of society so much more than that. The little rips people like her put in the fabric of civilization don't heal.

It's not clear that racial bigotry played a role, but it sure fits the stereotype of prosecutor goes after big black man for raping innocent woman on the basis of little evidence apart from her testimony. Public Defender tells black man to take the plea.

He said / she said
No physical evidence

It's not clear that sexist bigotry played a role, but it sure fits the stereotype of prosecutor goes after a man for raping an innocent woman on the basis of little evidence apart from her testimony. Public Defender tells the man to take the plea.

He said / she said
No physical evidence

It's not clear any bigotry played a role here, but it sure fits the stereotype of an institutional bias against men and/or black men.

If you flip the genders around, do you see the prosecution and defense proceeding as they did?

> it sure fits the stereotype

No one in this thread is as fond of stereotypes and pat, familiar narratives as you are.

> If you flip the genders around, do you see the
> prosecution and defense proceeding as they did?

No, but here's the thing, and you may heard something about this: Men and women aren't the same. (In each millisecond of each day, large portions of internet bandwidth are given to the exploration of this fundamental truth and reflection upon its consequences.) We don't expect the same blessings from each, and don't fear the same hazards from each.

> The public was not responsible for what
> happened to her, nor were public servants
> the perpetrators.

Nor were they in what happened to him. See how that works?

> Injustice by the system must lead to recompense
> by the system

This was not "systemic" "injustice". Bad things happen on our planet. Any child over the age of seven ought to understand that. Any child over nine ought to understand that our justice system guarantees nothing. Seriously, boys, again: Who promised you that the bad guy is always punished? Mickey Mouse cartoons? Batman comic books?

> those who abuse it must be locked away
> without mercy.

Well, locking away is a form of mercy, and I'd welcome that fate for this woman... But for no one else, and NOT FOR THE DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS.

> Why are you more outraged by payment to
> the innocent man wrongly accused, than the
> lying little bitch that started the whole
> process?

What makes you think I am? Answer specifically. Put it in a sentence.

If you want to spend your life choking with anger about the times that woman are judged as credible when men are not, you're welcome to do so.

But could you do it quietly? Because it's not an insight.

"No one in this thread is as fond of stereotypes and pat, familiar narratives as you are."

Says Crid, who has been painting everyone that disagrees with him in this thread and believes compensation is due this man as either a whining men's right activist or a socialist with his hands in everyone else's pocket.

And that's after it's been pointed out that incarcerating the innocent goes directly against the earliest and most fundamental values of our justice system.

>> You're assuming that tax money comes out of nowhere, instead of from the pockets of decent people who worked hard to earn it so that they can feed their children.

And you seem to be under the misconception that the money is still yours after it has been given to the government. It's not. We are not punishing any individual tax payer or all of the tax payers. They've spent their money and the government has it. No one is going to get an extra surcharge because of this. So if the government is forced to spend some money to recompensate those who have been screwed by the system, then that's money well spent. And if this is a hardship for the government, then too damn bad, fix the policies that allow this shit to happen in the first place.

>>This was not "systemic" "injustice".

Any idiot can see that prosecuting one person based solely on the word of another, as a matter of policy, is "systemic" "injustice".

"Solely"? What makes you think so?

Aaaaand... You forgot to answer my question.

What makes you think I am (more angered about the payout to the fellow than to the woman)? Answer specifically. Put it in a sentence.

(How come people here can't answer questions?)

> They've spent their money and the government
> has it.

The one thing they haven't done is "spend" it...

> No one is going to get an extra surcharge
> because of this.

No, but they're getting larger tax bills.

I'm getting the sense that you're not a finance guy.

> fix the policies that allow this shit to
> happen in the first place.

Not a policy problem, babe... A human nature problem. Law is difficult.

sorry, this is a test psot, I seem unable to answer cars and pirates

Oh sure, now it works

>>"Solely"? What makes you think so?

Because he was innocent, you moron. What else could they have had?

>>The one thing they haven't done is "spend" it...

Sorry, once you've paid your taxes your money has been spent. You have no further influence over where it goes. Pretty basic concept that any child would understand, why don't you get it? (and I just asked a child)

>>No, but they're getting larger tax bills.

It is moronic, to suggest that payouts like this lead to more taxes for anyone. However it is easily arguable, if this is in fact your primary concern, that not prosecuting this case in the first place would have served your purpose much better. Having penalties in place to discourage frivolous prosecution would seem to be the order of the day.

>>Not a policy problem, babe

You can feel free to stick your head in the sand all you want, but this is a policy problem and one that is endemic to our system of law. Either proof is required or it is not. The DA has a 9 to 1 chance of getting a conviction through threat of punishment alone. The cost of an attorney to defend against any charge will bankrupt most people. So when the DA prosecutes without proof to get that easy win, he or his employers should pay through the nose for it when it can be proven he was wrong. The DA, though it is rarely recognized these days, has an inherent obligation to forward the cause of justice. Not just to prosecute anyone they think they can convict. And yes, our govenment has given us a promise of justice through our legal system. If there were no justice there would only be anarchy. And the government has the most to lose if that is ever truly the case.

Thanks Amy for taking the time to retrieve them if you have done so.

I think the problem was as you point out that I did answer "car" to one of them, but after that I am pretty sure I got caught in some loop where regardless of how I answered "cars", it still would not post the comment.

So it was confusing, there I was, trying to answer correctly, and the system was instructing me to go back and try it again.

Also, please don't bother to retrieve those comments if you haven't already, they are assuredly not worth your time to do so and of little value to your readers.

Amy,

I have actually been curious how well cars and pirates works.

Compared to captcha's my experience is that at your blog cars and pirates works beautifully, but I am wondering if it is working as nicely as it seems.

> What else could they have had?

You don't seem to know. On the way into work, I heard a lawyer on the radio describe a bunch of circumstantial stuff. And apparently there WAS a sexual encounter.

> Either proof is required or it is not.

Ok, then! Pretend everything is really simple! Let us know how that works out for you.

>>You don't seem to know.

And you don't either fucktard. Except you do know he was innocent. So all the "proof" must have been horseshit.

>>Ok, then! Pretend everything is really simple! Let us know how that works out for you.

Are you really that stupid? Do you have any concept of what justice is? Do you recognize that our government promises us justice through the legal system? Do you realize that when our justice system makes a mistake, that is verifiable, the proper thing to do, to enforce justice, is to make amends? Anything else is evil. Answer these questions, like you want us to answer yours. I dare you. Fucking pick and choose asshole.

> Are you really that stupid?

Well...

> Do you have any concept of what justice is?

Yes.

> Do you recognize that our government promises
> us justice through the legal system?

Nope.

> Do you realize that when our justice system
> makes a mistake, that is verifiable, the
> proper thing to do, to enforce justice,
> is to make amends?

Where possible, but not necessarily through financial payouts.

> Anything else is evil.

No.

> Answer these questions, like you want us to
> answer yours.

M'kay?

> I dare you.

You're a bold, challenging presence on our internet!

> Fucking pick and choose asshole.

Needs punctuation.

In summary, I think all these responses from you pro-payout people were about thinking how it would be fun to be given a lot of money. That zone of fantasy has little to do with justice.

Thanks for your attention!

"Nor were they in what happened to him. See how that works?"

NO. THEY did every single thing but make up the lie in the first place. What part are they not responsible for, except the little bitch's lie?
---------
True there are no guarantees, but the one thing we ought to try to guarantee, is that if we the people do wrong to one of our citizens through the actions of our public servants, or some evil minded citizen, we will do what we can to set it right, assist the victim, compensate the wronged, and punish the offenders. That is the promise of the pursuit of justice. Just because perfect justice is impossible, does not mean that we should instead do nothing when our system punishes the guiltless.
"What makes you think I am? Answer specifically. Put it in a sentence."
You want it in a sentence, here you go, here is a complete list of every ounce of outrage you have heaped upon the false accuser, upon the police and attorneys, and all those other parties responsible for putting an innocent man in jail, and as a bonus, here is everything you've suggested actually be done for the falsely accused:

------------------
List over. Not a word of condemnation, indeed the closest you've come is "I feel bad for the guy, but…" Followed by being annoyed and seemly confused as to his compensation. All you've railed against has been the notion that a man who was wrongly imprisoned by the agents of the system, should be in some financial way paid for the wrong done to him.
Yet you have failed to suggest any reason why he should not be except that every individual citizen was not responsible for what happened to him.
You haven't suggested how he'll make up the time lost to him? How he'll make up the lost wages he might have earned? How he'll be treated for the trauma of being a sex offender in prison where a rapist is one step above a child molester in the hierarchy and universally despised, (their lot is not pretty).
You haven't suggested any means that this man might be in some way restored to a free and productive society, where is he to find employment, and or how he should deal with the suspicion that will follow his blackened name for as long as it can be put into a google search engine and the sordid affair brought back up, with the constant "what ifs" that go with it in the minds of those who don't know the story.
Indeed, Crid you haven't suggested anything of justice here, only annoyance that he is getting money from the system that screwed him over.
Its as if you think we should all just shrug our collective shoulders, let him go with an "oops, sorry" and go about our lives and expect him to go back to just the way things were before his nightmare began.

SO…do tell Crid, you who love questions so much, riddle me this, what do you think IS appropriate in this instance? (Other than jailing the lying bitch and taking back every bit of her fraudulent resources if anything is left, then throwing away the key to whatever hole she's tossed into for the rest of her days, I think we can agree more or less on that part) but what do you think should be done about HIM? The only real victim in the case.

It is moronic, to suggest that payouts like this lead to more taxes for anyone.

Government payouts of all kinds lead to higher taxes.

Politicians don't give up pet projects because they were forced to spend a big chunk of the general fund on lawsuit settlements. They just advocate for higher taxes to put more money in the general fund.

We need to start looking at government money as money taken from us and not some magic fund that exists to take care of all the world's wrongs - and to insist politicians spend it judiciously. Otherwise, we're going to go broke ... huh? ... never mind.

==============================

It's important to note here that California law provides $100 per day of incarceration for people wrongfully imprisoned. Banks is filing a claim for his $100 per day, not filing a lawsuit (yet).

That amounts to less than $200,000, but it's enough for him to go to college, learn a trade, or blow on a used Ferrari - unless he has to pay California income tax on it; then he'll have to settle for community college or a slightly used Honda.

==============================

Having penalties in place to discourage frivolous prosecution would seem to be the order of the day.

This was hardly a "frivolous" prosecution.

At the time she made her accusations, the evidence that was available supported her story. They did fool around in a stairwell. Both parties agreed on that. He said it was consensual. She said it was not.

While there were no eyewitnesses to the act, there was a note that she gave to her friend shortly afterward in which she told her friend that he "rapped" her.

DNA and trace evidence are not nearly as common as television would have you believe, so not having DNA evidence was not an automatic indicator of his innocence or her perjury.

While her testimony in the pre-trial hearing did not exactly match her original accusation, it did not change to a degree that would alert prosecutors that she might be lying. She remained a credible accuser.

While the evidence in this case was mostly circumstantial and he said / she said, both his attorney and he looked at that evidence and feared it was enough for a jury to convict. They seemed to think the evidence against him was pretty credible - a great deal more credible than just his word against hers.

==============================

Most evidence in cases like this is circumstantial and he said / she said. Just ask Kobe Bryant. Or the Duke lacrosse team. Or Desiree Washington. Or Juanita Broaderick.

How many "rappists" do you think would be prosecuted if the prosecution was required to have substantial DNA and trace evidence before pressing charges. "Rap" doesn't happen in front of witnesses with video cameras and "rappists" don't always leave convenient DNA samples.

The American trial system exists for 12 dispassionate people to weigh the evidence, no matter how sparse, and seek the truth. That they don't always find it is not an indictment of the system, but a fact of human nature. It's still the fairest system the world has yet devised.

"DNA and trace evidence are not nearly as common as television would have you believe, so not having DNA evidence was not an automatic indicator of his innocence or her perjury."

Yes. This correct. In any case DNA evidnece cannot indicate consent or non-consent, which is an element of the crime, the crucial element in this case. And the law allows the unsupported allegation a person to be used to determine consent or non-consent.

That is unjust, and that is systemic. That is the "systemic injustice" we are talking about.

And there's something else about the investigation. A white woman is accusing a black man of rape. Yes of course theoretically, in a strictly logical sense, that is a possible, she may actually have been raped - but actuarially, based on the set of white woman accuses black man incidents in this country's history, this accusation called for heightened scrutiny. The accuser deserved that too, she deserved to have her accusation looked at critically. There's no sign the investigators did that.

...she deserved to have her accusation looked at critically. There's no sign the investigators did that.

Scream "you're blaming the victim" often enough and that's what happens.

And the law allows the unsupported allegation a person to be used to determine consent or non-consent.

Because, many times, that's all there is. She brings an accusation of non-consent, but no DNA, eyewitnesses, or trace evidence. He says it was consensual. The jury decides.

That's why our system establishes the default as "innocent until proven guilty" and the standard of the evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" and puts the burden of proof on the prosecution - to make it as fair as possible.

This is not a crime that happens outdoors in front of many witnesses. To avoid getting seriously hurt or killed, she complies - so no bruising, wounds, or broken bones. The prosecutor has nothing but her word to go on.

That's not a "systemic injustice" but a fact of life.

The villian in this piece is not "the system." It's Wanetta Gibson - and only Wanetta Gibson.

I sort of agree with you Conan.

But the problem here is that the only two people who know what went on in private are the accuser and the accused.

Everything we see says that the only evidence was her word.

Guilt requires that someone be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

An arrest should require evidence. Not just a pointed finger.

If the only thing to be found here was her pointed finger, he never should have been arrested, and they never should have convinced him to plead guilty and go to jail. It is fruitless to wonder what scare tactics they used on him...because those proceedings have no recordings.

We know they're allowed to lie. So for all we know he said there was a witness backing her up and that the physical pointed to his guilt and would be believed while he would be ignored.

In short, they had no case to prosecute, so they managed to get an end run around any actual evidence and get him to convict himself through fear of much worse consequences.

Frankly I'd fry the lot of them.

Its true rape is difficult to prove...but the problem is that it is far to easy to convict.

> THEY did every single thing but make
> up the lie in the first place.

No, they didn't. All that circumstantial stuff was just waiting for them. And "mak[ing] up the lie in the first place" is inarguably the crux of this conflict.

> we will do what we can to set it
> right, assist the victim, compensate
> the wronged, and punish the offenders.

None of that has anything to do with taxing the rest of us to cut this guy a check. Money doesn't make being "wronged" go away. This will always have happened to him, even if he gets free medical care for the rest of his life, like some single-term idiot congressman.

> a complete list of every ounce of
> outrage you have heaped upon the
> false accuser

Outrage, right? This is about emotions for you. Your primary concern is with people's feelings... "By the ounce."

Firstly, that's a feminine view of the world, at least to the extent that it's not a childish one. Secondly, it's blindingly obvious to me and every sentient human being that she's morally compelled to return the money she was awarded and do at least some of the time to which he'd been condemned; So obvious that in the first article I read about this and all that have followed, her inability to repay was described in early paragraphs, with discussion of the probability of sending her to jail. The fact that everyone isn't giving you a brochure and and compass so that you can track their thinking doesn't mean they aren't hiking the territory.

Also, you missed this exchange describing my thoughts about this woman, or didn't care about it because it more about practicality than emotions:

>> What does she have that could even
>> be garnished?

> To a certain extent, the breath in her lungs.
> We should garnish the breath in her lungs. OR,
> if she's going to be a ward of the state anyway,
> EVEN DESPITE THIS PAYOUT FROM LONG BEACH, she
> could be incarcerated such that the expense she
> brings to the rest of the community is kept to
> a bare minimum.

You're not interested in practicalities. You're a heat-seeking anger bot. You're looking for a preteen-style alliance of resentment. How's it working out for you?

> Yet you have failed to suggest any
> reason why he should not be

1. Money (from distant, uninvolved people) won't make the error go away any more than it did for the girl.

2. Money (from distant, uninvolved people) won't make the error less likely to happen again in the future any more than it did for the girl.

> You haven't suggested how he'll make
> up the time lost to him?

He won't, and we have no idea what money he'd have made. Conjecture is pointless: Maybe he'd never have gotten a scholarship. Maybe he'd have been a great player in his first college game and broken his back in his second. Maybe he'd have been shitty in his first game and lost his scholarship in his spring semester. Maybe he'd have gotten a job washing dishes in a restaurant, and found a great new way to rinse away ketchup splotches, and he'd have made $200 million and retired. Conjecture is pointless.

> How he'll be treated for the trauma of
> being a sex offender in prison

A separate set of concerns which are not of interest to you anyway, and for which I credit you with no insight whatsoever.

> You haven't suggested any means that
> this man might be in some way restored
> to a free and productive society

Free him; done.

> where is he to find employment

I don't care. It's not society's purpose to you find your place in the world, whoever you are.

> or how he should deal with the suspicion
> that will follow his blackened name

I bet that's not going to be a problem. He's much more famous as a miscarriage of justice than he was as an exemplar of it. Had YOU heard of this case?

> you haven't suggested anything of justice
> here, only annoyance that he is getting
> money from the system that screwed him over.

I don't think "the system" is the problem, just as I don't think "the system" is where the money's coming from.

> you think we should all just shrug our
> collective shoulders

Collectively, yes. As do you, right? I mean, you still haven't proposed any remedy for the "system" that put him in this situation... Except to mumble, in a cro-magnon tone of voice, "Gurl BAD... Man GOOD!!!!" If this guy wanted to speak with me privately about how to move forward in life, I'd be happy to talk with him.

> what do you think IS appropriate in
> this instance? (Other than jailing the
> lying bitch and taking back every bit
> of her fraudulent resources

Why the qualification? Again, feller, that's exactly what I proposed above. And as policy, it's a much firmer body of procedure than you've proposed.

What would be "appropriate" would be planetary visit from a trans-cosmic deity offering tidings of warmth, insight and jurisprudential genius from the farthest reaches of our galaxy and beyond... Because certain problems in our courts just do not go away, and no Earthly being has any idea how to make things work better than they do in the United States of America, whatever her faults.

YOU certainly don't.

"Outrage."

By the way... The guy's scheduled a tryout with the Seattle Seahawks. If he becomes a gonzo-successful football star, would you expect him to give back the gazillions of dollars your about to hand him from the taxpayers of California?

Just curious.

...she deserved to have her accusation looked at critically.

She also deserved to have her accusation taken seriously - until she became a known liar.

And the next woman who reports being raped but has no evidence or corroborating witnesses deserves to have her accusation taken seriously, too.

Don't let the Wanetta Gibsons of the world take that away from her.

Two things, gaziilions and 200000 are not the same thing.

Secondly, several people have suggested a number of soultions to prevent this from happening again. That you choose to ignore them is not a valid basis for your claim that no one has suggested any solutions.

This is why you do so poorly in these debates crid. You lie, you lie poorly, and you are doing it in written format where your lies are oh so easily exposed

Emotions might be transcendental things Crid.

But anger and rage have their place in the continuum of human life. It was outrage that prompted our ancestors to throw tea into the Boston harbor, outrage at injustice that prompted people to march into danger where reasonable self preservation might have turned back when violent men sought to oppress others. Outrage at injustice that compelled people to create a just system in the first place.

I commonly have little use for emotion, but what its about really doesn't matter here. Though I admit one of the few things I fear is the day when Americans no longer feel outrage over injustice done to its people, whatever the source.

What matters is what the facts are, and the fact is that an innocent man lost everything, had his name forever blackened, and lost 5 years of his life.

For fucks sake man under what circumstances should the system compensate those it wrongs?

You're not very good at answering questions Crid. Your good at little snips and bites, its a feminine view, its childish, its like one term congressmen, yadda yadda yadda. And you're good at asking questions. But you really suck at answering them.

You're right, I did miss that part Crid, and I apologize for my oversight, lot of posts, and it would appear I missed one.

But that aside, you're right, we don't know what he would have done, what he would have made.

Because the servants of the people took that opportunity away from him.

Money won't make an error go away, you can't do that, but it is the only tool that exists. But it will make the life the system fucked up, a little bit easier to move forward on, it'll pay for the opportunity to live something of a normal life again as he tries to rebuild. I wonder, did he own a home, property, possessions of some kind, what happened to those while he was in prison, not an easy place to pay bills from. Shouldn't he be compensated for all of the goods he lost?

And doesn't that count for something?

-------------------

You don't just set the wrongly imprisoned free and forget about them Crid. Was it equally inappropriate in your eyes when money was (eventually) paid to the imprisoned Japanese Americans after WWII? Those who lost property, jobs, income, and years of free lives through no fault or wrongdoing of their own?

If society ruins a man, it is societies responsibility to do what it can within reason to make it up to him. That is justice.

Your idea of justice is the total absence of justice.

I have indeed proposed a remedy, in fact we've had that discussion here before, I didn't go into depth on this one because that is not what is being discussed, and unlike YOU Crid, I can stay on topic.

And it was a bad girl who put a good man in a bad situation Crid. If you suggest its some overwhelming generalization, you're a moron, stick to the single case under discussion, don't raise straw men that nobody mentioned.

As to why the qualification, because that qualification is the only thing we agree upon, so its pointless to mention it.

Your idea of what is "appropriate" shows exactly what you have in the way of ideas…which is precisely…nothing.

I've been rightly accused of being a heartless bastard many a time, but never have I been accused of being unjust.

Ironically, your last point, that "no Earthly being has any idea how to make things work better than they do in the United States of America, whatever her faults." Suggests that the system is right to compensate him. I'm sure you weren't aware you were disagreeing with yourself.

You've been all about insults on this one Crid. Other than whining how its not fair that tax dollars are being used on someone who tax dollars paid to screw over, and suggesting that the only thing a man should get after losing 5 years of his life is to be cut loose and forgotten about.

The cold hard fact here Crid, is that on this issue at least, you are so far wrong that you aren't even on the same planet as anyone with a sense of justice. Even many ancient societies with only the most basic concept of human rights at least made an attempt to restore people citizens they found that they had wrongly destroyed.
------------------

And why should he give it back if he finds his own way to success. Was he somehow "unwronged"? Sure I'd say he should give it back…when California gives back the 5 years it stole.

You say I'm childish for believing that a just system should compensate the people it wrongs, I say to you in turn Crid, that you are the one being childish, for believing that a simple apology and unlocking the jail's door entitles the system to completely abandon the life it ruined absent any responsibility.

The day "oops, we fucked up, sorry, now go away" is the standard, is the day we have lost all concept of what a just society is about.

------------

That was probably some of my most confounded writing. I really should have included the individual parts I was responding to at each stage. Oops. Wish we would edit our entries.

Side note:

Actually I disagree with you a little bit lujlp, Crid usually does OK, on some things, even if I think he's wrong, he is capable of making reasonable points.

He's doing REALLY BADLY this time (they don't make a caps lock big enough to express how badly 'lol'), because he is so far wrong in every form or fashion that he doesn't just lack a leg to stand on, he lacks the floor, and is tumbling endlessly deeper into the hole his pathetic argument here has dug for himself.

As to the rest, well yeah, he might be ignoring the preventive suggestions people have made, but there ARE a lot of posts here, and anyone could miss one or two here and there. Hell I did, and I usually read straight from top to bottom. But who knows, you might be right, he might be ignoring them because they inconvenience his desperate adherence to the idea that the system is not responsible for what happened to him, or for compensating him, since it would be admitting that the system is flawed in some fairly dangerous and destructive ways.

> gaziilions and 200000 are not the same

Gazillions only has two i's.

And maybe it's a bitter irony, but (relative) smallness of the amount makes me think it's all about the money rather than the principle. Is it a penalty large enough to, as some here have suggested, snap Californians to attention to address these horrible "systemic" problems? Of course not. Would you do five years for 200K? Of course not... It's a few year's worth of typical adult income. This guy can't be compensated for his loss. We shouldn't try. We certainly shouldn't try with money taken from so many who had nothing to do with it.

I wonder why none of you have managed to argue that the girl deserved 'her' money?

> several people have suggested
> a number of soultions

Count the people and count the "soultions", and let us know the tally. Better yet, tell us which one was your champion, and explain why it didn't come to mind, even for you. Certainly no women reading these words have spoken up to agree with it.

No, your concern is being expressed by a VERY particular kind of personality... Male, naive ('Liar!'), and bitter.

Good luck out there, fellers!

(More later if there's time)