"Virginity test" helps to free 3 convicted rapists

[Ekit]

Because they re-opened it for the wrong reasons. It was pure luck that they turned out to be innocent.

I don't know, but I think it costs alot of money to re-open a closed case.

And if they had been guilty, which was the most probable outcome, they would have either wasted lots of money on comfirming something they already knew.

Or wasted lots of money to get three men guilty of gang rape back out on the streets before they had served their time.

So basically you're saying that it's better for three guys to rot in jail for 20 years (and I do mean rot... have you SEEN these Asian jails??) than to spend a bit of money?

I sure as hell don't!

No, I am saying that it's better to use your country's finances to help your citizens instead of spending them on confirming a completely ridiculous idea.

 

[Lawyer105]

No, I am saying that it's better to use your country's finances to help your citizens instead of spending them on confirming a completely ridiculous idea.

I seriously doubt that the president gave the order to reexamine the files based solely on the crazy woman. It's much more likely that:
- the newspapers were making an issue of the 'unfair conviction',
- the woman made a noise,
- the president ordered the reexamination,
- the media made a big deal of the president doing that because of the woman.

Now, I dunno what the new services are like where you live, but here in the UK it's flat guaranteed that even 'respectable' services like the BBC will sensationalise headlines in the manner I've described above.

Without significant investigation, it's impossible to conclude from a few news reports what has actually gone on.

All that we KNOW for certain is that:
a) the crazy woman made a noise;
b) the president ordered the reexamination of the case;
c) the prosecutors discovered that the case was flawed; and
d) the innocent men were released from an undeserved prison sentence.

While it's easy to see a causal link between B, C and D - there's no actual causal link identified between A and B (apart from a few sensationalist media headlines). You can believe that they're linked if you like (but personally, I think that makes you as crazy as the accupuncturist...). At the end of the day, (for an unknown reason) the president gave an order and the judicial process operated as designed.

Those men ARE citizens, and there's still no proven link between the expenditure and the looney-toon idea.

Sorry. Try again.

 

[Ekit]

I seriously doubt that the president gave the order to reexamine the files based solely on the crazy woman. It's much more likely that:
- the newspapers were making an issue of the 'unfair conviction',
- the woman made a noise,
- the president ordered the reexamination,
- the media made a big deal of the president doing that because of the woman.

Now, I dunno what the new services are like where you live, but here in the UK it's flat guaranteed that even 'respectable' services like the BBC will sensationalise headlines in the manner I've described above.

Without significant investigation, it's impossible to conclude from a few news reports what has actually gone on.

All that we KNOW for certain is that:
a) the crazy woman made a noise;
b) the president ordered the reexamination of the case;
c) the prosecutors discovered that the case was flawed; and
d) the innocent men were released from an undeserved prison sentence.

While it's easy to see a causal link between B, C and D - there's no actual causal link identified between A and B (apart from a few sensationalist media headlines). You can believe that they're linked if you like (but personally, I think that makes you as crazy as the accupuncturist...). At the end of the day, (for an unknown reason) the president gave an order and the judicial process operated as designed.

Those men ARE citizens, and there's still no proven link between the expenditure and the looney-toon idea.

Sorry. Try again.

I thought that was kind of the whole point of the article.

The fact that the woman made a noise and that the president acted because of that.
That is what I have been assuming this whole time.

Does it say anything about the reasons behind re-opening the case?

Cause if it turns out that the president didn't have any other reason to re-open the case then I still think he is stupid.

But if he actually had a compelling argument for his actions then I was wrong.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Wait wait wait... You mean the fact that she was willing to light herself on fire didn't confirm that she was crazy, it made them BELIEVE HER? I don't know about you guys, but if I were to take this to government in Canada and threaten to light myself on fire for those three convicts, Parliament (I'm in Canada) would have pulled out marshmellows and a straight Jacket incase I survived!

 

[Lawyer105]

I thought that was kind of the whole point of the article.

The fact that the woman made a noise and that the president acted because of that.
That is what I have been assuming this whole time.

Does it say anything about the reasons behind re-opening the case?

Cause if it turns out that the president didn't have any other reason to re-open the case then I still think he is stupid.

But if he actually had a compelling argument for his actions then I was wrong.

But you're missing the whole point of my post!

The only evidence that there's a link between the woman and the president's decision is a newspaper article that doesn't even directly state that?! It just phrases things to imply a link!

And you're accepting this and jumping straight to the conclusion that the president is an idiot and therefore these dudes should have stayed in jail to save some money?

As I said... I dunno where you come from that the news services are so totally reliable and accurate, but it sure ain't this planet. Does anybody seriously take everything the media says for granted??

 

[SextusMaximus]

Wait... they free'd three convicted sex offenders on the grounds that they all have red spots behind their ears? Fuck?!

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

This is a load of shit, what is happening to the world?

 

[JJMUG]

[
And the fact that it turned out that the men were innocent is irrelevant.

People like you are the reason people like Anthony Capozzi spent 22 years behind bars.

 

[Vrach]

Yeah, threatening to light yourself on fire. Completely assures me she has a valid medical argument and is a completely sane and stable person.

If you'd excuse me, my sarcasm detector just activated the fire alarm so I've got to go >.>

 

[superbatranger]

So, a guy can get a red marker, draw a dot on his ear and BOOM! instant virgin? The lack of logic in that scares me.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

What the fuck is wrong with that woman? They shouldn't listen to her, they should stick her behind bars too.

I imagine the only reason they re-opened the case was because she threatened to harm herself. Shows how much even she believed her own argument...

I'm sure that's the case, still, let me rephrase what I said for clarity.

What the fuck is wrong with this woman? They shouldn't listen to her, they should stick her behind bars AND remove all flamible objects from her cell.

 

[Chaos Bringer]

Which damn ear is it?

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

"My many years of experience told me that these men did not have sex before."

That made me laugh.

 

[Normalgamer]

She threatened to light herself on fire to have some rapists released - why would you take anything someone like that says seriously?

But see if the red dot theory is true closet virgins and homosexuals worldwide are screwed

That makes no sense, sexual experience can also mean masturbation.

 

[Jynxx-TheSiren]

Do these dots only show up on Vietnamese men? I mean I've been checking ears since I read the article and there is no one I know with dots. Virgins and non-virgins alike.

Looks like she did the right thing, since the men were set free when the case was re-opened. She helped 3, likely innocent, men get their freedom. I'd say the end justified the means here.

I hope this is a joke.

It's a highly serious case that got re-examined because of some utter nonsense. It should never have been re-opened for something like this.

Agreed completely. I might be biased a bit as a rape victim, but if my rapist got off because some crazy chick is seeing dots and what have you I'd be just a little pissed. Actually a bit more than pissed. The fact that they were considered "innocent" now is completely irrelevant. Personally I think that they are guilty, don't you know that 75% of eyewitnesses lie. If that's the thing that made them innocent then I don't believe it.

 

[Woodsey]

Do these dots only show up on Vietnamese men? I mean I've been checking ears since I read the article and there is no one I know with dots. Virgins and non-virgins alike.

Looks like she did the right thing, since the men were set free when the case was re-opened. She helped 3, likely innocent, men get their freedom. I'd say the end justified the means here.

I hope this is a joke.

It's a highly serious case that got re-examined because of some utter nonsense. It should never have been re-opened for something like this.

Agreed completely. I might be biased a bit as a rape victim, but if my rapist got off because some crazy chick is seeing dots and what have you I'd be just a little pissed. Actually a bit more than pissed. The fact that they were considered "innocent" now is completely irrelevant. Personally I think that they are guilty, don't you know that 75% of eyewitnesses lie. If that's the thing that made them innocent then I don't believe it.

Woah, it's my understanding that they were later discovered to be innocent - apparently the case had numerous holes in it and whatnot. I don't dispute that; if a judge says they're innocent then they are innocent.

My point was that in spite of that they shouldn't have been retried on the grounds that they were. I.e. because of the magic dot that no one's heard of.

 

[Jynxx-TheSiren]

Woah, it's my understanding that they were later discovered to be innocent - apparently the case had numerous holes in it and whatnot. I don't dispute that; if a judge says they're innocent then they are innocent.

My point was that in spite of that they shouldn't have been retried on the grounds that they were. I.e. because of the magic dot that no one's heard of.

I'm not sure about these other holes, but the only thing that was mentioned was the eyewitness testimony. Witnesses are not always truthful in what they see of hear, and they just say what they thought they saw or heard once they realize it's some sort of investigation.

And I agree they shouldn't be re tried without SERIOUS evidence coming into light. Some crazy chick with dots does not count in the least bit.

 

[DanDeFool]

Note to self: Never let girlfriend/wife/daughter go to Vietnam... EVER!!!!

 

[Crash 9000]

I have no red dot behind my ear and as far as I know I haven't had sex.

Does this mean... I WAS SECRETLY RAPED IN THE NIGHT!?

 

[Queen Michael]

Sigh. And people ask me why I'm not more "open-minded" about alternative medicine.