No compo after 22yrs wrongly in jail

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ISUKappa
Okay, so when did we ever say the victim should not incur some sort of "punishment?" Never.

What if the man doesn't want to punish the victim? Should she still be punished? Who gets to decide that?

Now you're arguing something irrelevant. I never said you said he shouldn't be punished.

And yes even if the victim doesn't want to punish the rape lady (I'd rather reserve the label victim for the male since he's really the main character here), she should be punished. She should be punished for lying in court. She should be punished because her actions led to the punishment of a man whereby citizens and the government paid for that punishment.

And I don't see this artificial reasoning you created to allow for this whole mess but I suppose you don't want to keep talking about that since it's such a ridiculous claim.

-Rudey

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I really don't think the rape victim did anything deserving of punishment. If it turns out that she knowingly lied when identifying this man, she should be punished, but I doubt that that is the case. I think that she mistakenly misidentified him. That's not a crime. This situation is a reflection of the problem of depending on eyewitness testimony. Many people convicted based on eyewitness testimony have had their verdicts overturned when new evidence such as DNA has been introduced.

Again, I do feel very sorry for him, and I think that he should be compensated for his incarceration.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally posted by Rudey
And yes even if the victim doesn't want to punish the rape lady (I'd rather reserve the label victim for the male since he's really the main character here), she should be punished. She should be punished for lying in court. She should be punished because her actions led to the punishment of a man whereby citizens and the government paid for that punishment.

Do we know that she lied? What exactly was her testimony? If she honestly believed her testimony to be true, how has she done anything criminal? That's what I don't understand about your argument.

What were the circumstances of the rape? Was the woman drugged? drunk? Was it at night? I'm not going into any detail here but I'm fully aware how difficult it is to figure out what happened the night of a sexual assault. Now, if she didn't believe the man to be her attacker and she bore false testimony against him, that's truly outraged and should be punished. But if in the course of the investigation she became convinced it was him? I'm less sure there is a case. Who knows though, I'm no lawyer.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by breathesgelatin
Do we know that she lied? What exactly was her testimony? If she honestly believed her testimony to be true, how has she done anything criminal? That's what I don't understand about your argument.

What were the circumstances of the rape? Was the woman drugged? drunk? Was it at night? I'm not going into any detail here but I'm fully aware how difficult it is to figure out what happened the night of a sexual assault. Now, if she didn't believe the man to be her attacker and she bore false testimony against him, that's truly outraged and should be punished. But if in the course of the investigation she became convinced it was him? I'm less sure there is a case. Who knows though, I'm no lawyer.

Do you know she didn't lie? And if she couldn't identify the person but still did, what does that mean? She didn't say I don't know if it's not him, she said it's him.

Even if she didn't know, she still put a man in prison and caused damage to the state while taxpayers footed the bill.

And so what if the victim doesn't want to press charges (the state should in any case). I mean hey Dr. K still killed people even though they gave their permission, and Dr. K was tried in a court.

-Rudey

[breathesgelatin]

Originally posted by Rudey
Do you know she didn't lie? And if she couldn't identify the person but still did, what does that mean? She didn't say I don't know if it's not him, she said it's him.

No, of course I don't know if she lied. It's not my job to know. None of us on this messageboard know. I didn't say that she said "I don't know if it's him." I said that perhaps she wasn't able to ID him at first but upon seeing other evidence, working with her lawyers, etc., she became CONVINCED that it was him. She then knew it was him--even if this was a false piece of knowledge.

If and only if this was the case, then there's no case against her. It's entirely possible that she genuinely believed that this man did it. If so, she didn't perjure herself. Yes, she was speaking on a false knowledge. But that's not a lie.

However, if there was a doubt in her mind or if she lied, clearly there may be grounds for a criminal case against her.

Regardless of whether she lied or not she may be liable for a civil suit. I don't know anything about that.

The fact of the matter is that none of us here have any knowledge of whether she did in fact lie or not. I just think it's a bit too early to assume that she's a liar who should be punished. And it's entirely inappropriate to suggest things like "freebies". I am actually really appalled at that. To do so suggests not only a total lack of understanding of the crimes of rape and sexual assault, it represents an inability to be so much as tactful or mature about the issue. Granted, only one person in this discussion did that.

I think that what many of the other women in this thread are responding to is women's fears of victim blaming. It is often common to blame the victim in sexual assault cases---"If she hadn't been so drunk...", "If she hadn't been out that late...." "If she hadn't been wearing that outfit..." This is a common fear of women who have been assaulted and it is done to them all the time. Now, in this case, there MAY have been a case of a woman lying about the identity of her attacker. MAYBE. None of us know that for sure. When people are immediately ready to jump on the bandwagon saying "Punish her!" or "Give him a freebie!" that sounds a bit premature and like victim-blaming to most women. Whether it was meant that way or not.

I hope that explicates the position of most of the women on this thread a bit better....??? Personally, I'm not accusing anyone of victim-blaming or being offensive except for James for his lovely freebie comment. I just think it comes from the fact that men and women, though they usually agree that rape is a horrible crime, have very different perspectives on the issue. They often cross arguments without really understanding one another.

I am really interested in the ethics of lying and secrecy so this is quite the interesting discussion.

[Rudey]

So everyone just can say that they were convinced their lie was the truth then? They were CONVINCED.

At the end of the day, even if you neglect that, someone has to pay for all the time and money that was spent on this victim - even if she did it accidentally. I assume that even if you kill someone accidentally, it's not just OK.

Whatever it is, based on all this faulty logic, this man can do awful things to this woman and we can just say it's understandable and it can keep occuring over and over until everyone on this earth is damaged - all because of this one woman. But I guess if this man chooses not to do that, then that means that the logic has failed and it's not understandable if someone has broken out of the cycle.

-Rudey

Originally posted by breathesgelatin
No, of course I don't know if she lied. It's not my job to know. None of us on this messageboard know. I didn't say that she said "I don't know if it's him." I said that perhaps she wasn't able to ID him at first but upon seeing other evidence, working with her lawyers, etc., she became CONVINCED that it was him. She then knew it was him--even if this was a false piece of knowledge.

If and only if this was the case, then there's no case against her. It's entirely possible that she genuinely believed that this man did it. If so, she didn't perjure herself. Yes, she was speaking on a false knowledge. But that's not a lie.

However, if there was a doubt in her mind or if she lied, clearly there may be grounds for a criminal case against her.

Regardless of whether she lied or not she may be liable for a civil suit. I don't know anything about that.

The fact of the matter is that none of us here have any knowledge of whether she did in fact lie or not. I just think it's a bit too early to assume that she's a liar who should be punished. And it's entirely inappropriate to suggest things like "freebies". I am actually really appalled at that. To do so suggests not only no understanding of the crime of rape and assault, it represents an inability to be so much as tactful or mature about the issue. Granted, only one person in this discussion did that.

I think that what many of the other women in this thread are responding to is women's fears of victim blaming. It is often common to blame the victim in sexual assault cases---"If she hadn't been so drunk...", "If she hadn't been out that late...." "If she hadn't been wearing that outfit..." This is a common fear of women who have been assaulted and it is done to them all the time. Now, in this case, there MAY have been a case of a woman lying about the identity of her attacker. MAYBE. None of us know that for sure. When people are immediately ready to jump on the bandwagon saying "Punish her!" or "Give him a freebie!" that sounds a bit premature and like victim-blaming to most women. Whether it was meant that way or not.

I hope that explicates the position of most of the women on this thread a bit better....??? Personally, I'm not accusing anyone of victim-blaming or being offensive except for James for his lovely freebie comment. I just think it comes from the fact that men and women, though they usually agree that rape is a horrible crime, have very different perspectives on the issue. They often cross arguments without really understanding one another.

I am really interested in the ethics of lying and secrecy so this is quite the interesting discussion.

[breathesgelatin]

I'll respond to your arguments piece by piece.

Originally posted by Rudey
So everyone just can say that they were convinced their lie was the truth then? They were CONVINCED.

Well, in a cynical world, yes, I suppose so. We would hope not, wouldn't we? I've done a lot of work on the theory of lying, which is based on hypothetical situations (which if I had to critique contemporary ethics, would be one of my major points). But the definition I'm using for lying is what you're going to see across the philosophical and ethical literature on lying--that if you have false knowledge and tell the truth, it's not a lie. I suppose people can structure defenses on that, yes, but they can structure defenses around a lot of other definitions, too.

Originally posted by Rudey
At the end of the day, even if you neglect that, someone has to pay for all the time and money that was spent on this victim - even if she did it accidentally. I assume that even if you kill someone accidentally, it's not just OK.

I can agree with you that someone needs to pay. I think the state should, and I think in a civil trial the woman might well be found liable (and appropriately so, perhaps). I was just stating that the case (as I see it) for a criminal case against it seems rather weaker.

Originally posted by Rudey
Whatever it is, based on all this faulty logic, this man can do awful things to this woman and we can just say it's understandable and it can keep occuring over and over until everyone on this earth is damaged - all because of this one woman. But I guess if this man chooses not to do that, then that means that the logic has failed and it's not understandable if someone has broken out of the cycle.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here--all I'm arguing is that we have no way of proving (given the evidence we're presented with) that the woman is criminally culpable. Culpable in other ways, sure. I admire the man for his forgiveness. What he experienced is incomprehensible to me and a total injustice. He should be compensated for that. If he's not, there's something wrong. Perhaps the woman did lie--if so, that's horrible. But maybe not. Anyway, if she did, there's a proper way for the man to deal with that--through the criminal justice system. I don't see how that's a cycle.

My philosophical orientation is to look at justice as a continuing project rather than a cut-and-dried issue. In this case, people have clearly been harmed. There are ways to sort it out, however, whether or not the woman lied. It doesn't have to be some endless cycle of retribution that you keep referring to.

[Rudey]

So by what you are all saying:

This woman could or could not have lied (evidently all she has to do is say she was stressed or convinced and it becomes acceptable).

Following this, the state paid to house this victim. By state I really mean tax payers.

Now the state should take on some sort of payment to the victim.

Basically the woman lied (but can say she was CONVINCED) and we pay to house him and then we pay since he wasn't the perpetrator.

Again, the logic of somehow finding a reason behind all this would lead to a cycle. Obviously if the man doesn't blame the woman, he's not using whatever fricking messed up things that are in his head "convince" him that he should. The woman however, did.

-Rudey

Originally posted by breathesgelatin
I'll respond to your arguments piece by piece.




Well, in a cynical world, yes, I suppose so. We would hope not, wouldn't we? I've done a lot of work on the theory of lying, which is based on hypothetical situations (which if I had to critique contemporary ethics, would be one of my major points). But the definition I'm using for lying is what you're going to see across the philosophical and ethical literature on lying--that if you have false knowledge and tell the truth, it's not a lie. I suppose people can structure defenses on that, yes, but they can structure defenses around a lot of other definitions, too.



I can agree with you that someone needs to pay. I think the state should, and I think in a civil trial the woman might well be found liable (and appropriately so, perhaps). I was just stating that the case (as I see it) for a criminal case against it seems rather weaker.



I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here--all I'm arguing is that we have no way of proving (given the evidence we're presented with) that the woman is criminally culpable. Culpable in other ways, sure. I admire the man for his forgiveness. What he experienced is incomprehensible to me and a total injustice. He should be compensated for that. If he's not, there's something wrong. Perhaps the woman did lie--if so, that's horrible. But maybe not. Anyway, if she did, there's a proper way for the man to deal with that--through the criminal justice system. I don't see how that's a cycle.

My philosophical orientation is to look at justice as a continuing project rather than a cut-and-dried issue. In this case, people have clearly been harmed. There are ways to sort it out, however, whether or not the woman lied. It doesn't have to be some endless cycle of retribution that you keep referring to.

[James]

Originally posted by wrigley
Originally his brother was charged with the rape, I'm curious as to whether he'll be tested for DNA in this case.

Thats really unlikely, given how she identified him. IF you scroll down the page to the bolded section, it shows how Dedge was identified.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/case...ile.php?id=149

Eight years after he requested postconviction DNA testing, Wilton Dedge has been exonerated and released from Florida prison. In 1982, Dedge was convicted in Brevard County, Florida, of sexual battery, aggravated battery, and burglary. He was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences.

THE CRIME

The victim was attacked in her home on December 8, 1981. After coming home in the afternoon, she heard a sound while changing clothes and turned to find a man armed with a blade. He cut off her clothes and raped her vaginally and anally. During the assault, the perpetrator cut the victim all over her body. After the assailant left, the victim contacted her boyfriend and was taken to the emergency room, where a rape kit and the victim’s clothes were collected.

THE CASE

Dedge maintained his innocence, but was convicted in May 1982. His conviction was reversed in 1983, but he was again convicted in August 1984. At trial, the prosecution relied on the victim’s eyewitness identification, microscopic hair comparison, snitch testimony, and dog sniffing evidence to secure the conviction - evidence eventually disproven by DNA testing.

Dedge maintained his innocence from the moment of arrest. His mother and brother testified that he had not even been in town when the crime occurred. Several alibi witnesses also testified on his behalf.

THE IDENTIFICATION

Four days after the crime, the victim saw a man in a convenience store and told her sister that he resembled her attacker, only he was shorter. The victim’s sister identified the man as "Walter Hedge". In January 1982, the victim told investigators about the man and the police arrested Wilton Dedge’s brother, Walter. After seeing Walter’s picture, the victim’s sister told police it was Wilton, not Walter, that the victim had seen at the store. Wilton Dedge’s picture was placed in a photographic array and the victim identified him. He was immediately arrested and charged.

The victim’s initial description of her assailant, given at the hospital, was six feet tall and approximately 160 pounds. She had been able to compare their relative heights before and during the attack. She also stated that the perpetrator was big and muscular, able to throw her around easily.

At the time of the crime, Wilton Dedge weighed 125 pounds and is 5'5" tall. At the second trial, the investigating officer testified for the first time that Dedge was wearing boots with higher than normal heels to compensate for the difference between the victim’s description and Dedge’s appearance.

THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

The prosecution’s hair expert testified that two pubic hairs were found on the victim’s bed. One was similar to hairs taken from the victim. The other was from a male and Dedge could not be eliminated as a possible source of that hair. The hair proved to be the only physical evidence linking Dedge to the crime.

Sperm was found on a swab in the rape kit, but no blood typing results were ascertained.

THE SNITCH AND THE DOG

To complete their case, prosecutors relied on the testimony of Clarence Zacke, a jailhouse snitch, and John Preston, who presented dog sniffing evidence.

Zacke was a known snitch and, at the time of Dedge’s trial, received a drastic reduction in his sentences. He claimed that Dedge confessed to the crime while they were being transported together in a prison van.

Preston’s dog allegedly, after sniffing an item with Dedge’s scent on it, alerted its owner to Dedge’s presence in the victim’s house. Preston has since been discredited by prosecutors and Federal Postal Inspectors in several states.

POSTCONVICTION

In 1996, Dedge was one of the first Florida inmates to seek postconviction DNA testing, several years before the state passed its 2001 law providing for such testing. He won that motion in 2000, and, in June 2001, mitochondrial DNA testing proved that the pubic hair did not come from Dedge. The Innocence Project and local counsel, Milton Hirsch, asked the court to overturn Dedge’s conviction on grounds of innocence. The State, however, argued that because Dedge had won access to DNA testing too early – before there was a law governing postconviction DNA testing – he could not benefit from the new law, or get into court with new evidence of innocence.

For three years, the State opposed Dedge’s motions on procedural grounds, at one time admitting in court that they would oppose Dedge’s release even if they knew that he was absolutely innocent. These paradoxical arguments were roundly rejected last summer by Brevard Circuit Judge Silvernail and again by the 5th District Court of Appeal in April 2004.

Further testing was ordered by the court on the semen evidence found on the anal swab recovered from the rape kit. Initial testing had yielded only two markers because the sample was degraded. Y chromosome STR testing was utilized in the final round of testing. The results excluded Dedge as the contributor of the spermatozoa, conclusively proving his innocence for a second time.