Some names of note:
Nick Saban (45)
Gene Stallings (1)
Elmer Fudd (1)
Leroy Jenkins (1)
Not a single vote for Robin Hood? Pshaw. I demand a recount.
what about pedophile charges? can he get prosecuted for those?
This is what I want to see. Official charges, jail time, court. And eventually prison time. A lot of it.
Pepe Le Pew nominated, presumably, because he’s marginally less of a creep than Moore.
You’ll never convict him this long afterwards, with no physical evidence.
Yeah even if you can prove he was trolling malls and picking up on teens, there is no way to prove the sex part unless someone was there. If that person was going to talk, they already would have.
Those women victims don’t count?
These are decades old cases. It seems… impossible. Hell we have trouble convicting cases that happened like yesterday, and the guy is caught on top of her, likely literally pulled off by other people who witnessed it.
Hey, that guy was sentenced to six whole months and served three! But at least his mugshot appears in college textbooks next to a definition of rape. So there’s that.
I like the “Mac” and “Me” write ins. Always nice to see proper coordination amongst the shitvote crowd.
They are certainly enough for an investigation, assuming the prosecutor isn’t a good old boy who voted for Moore, but no accuser can put someone beyond a reasonable doubt without other evidence.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but anyway it’s certainly possible to convict someone without any evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a single person. It happens all the time.
Yeah but it’s less likely to happen with something that happened decades ago for a crime we struggle with when it happened to the victim the night before. I mean even here we have a few who mocked MeToo and wring their hands over the unfairness of it all even though largely the attention has been on individuals with multiple incidents and fairly clear results.
You really think someone like Moore, who used to be a judge, who will not cede any political race, is going to be convicted of anything in state where the race was so narrow he lost by around 20k votes? These people who voted for him knew what kind of man he’s been… and didn’t care. And he only needs a few of them in the process to keep him a free man.
A third-party eyewitness, perhaps. But I doubt anyone is ever convicted by the victim’s accusation with no other evidence. Because how can there not be a reasonable doubt in such a case? It seems like an essential quality of the situation.
There’s always more than just an eye witness… stuff like establishing motive, various corroborating evidence supporting the witness testimony, like proving they were at the location, etc.
You’d never get a criminal conviction based upon nothing more than just a single person saying they did something.
People are convicted all the time based solely on the testimony of the victim. Particularly, but not exclusively, for sexual assault.
You don’t need additional evidence to remove reasonable doubt. You just need a witness who the jury thinks is trustworthy and/or a defendant who the jury thinks is lying.
That said, as Nesrie pointed out, in this case it might be difficult to establish the reliability of the victim’s testimony in court because of how long ago the events took place.
This just isn’t the case.
There are literally zero trials where the court opens up, and the prosecution presents nothing more than one person’s testimony, and then rests.
I’m not sure why you think there are.
Or maybe, I should say, there SHOULD be no cases where that happens… I suppose you actually MAY have cases where some black guy gets convicted by a racist jury in the south… but that’s mainly going to be due to a failure of the criminal justice system. With only one person saying you did it, and literally zero evidence to support it? There is always going to be reasonable doubt.
Here are two convictions from a random Google search. They are only interesting because the defendants were later exonerated, otherwise it likely wouldn’t have made the news.
And no, I don’t think this is unreasonable. Many crimes don’t have third party eyewitnesses or leave physical evidence. And the main function of a jury is to act as a crowsourced bullshit detector.