this post was submitted on
40 points (52% like it)
367 up votes 327 down votes
top 200 commentsshow all 314

[–]ReyTheRed 41 points42 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If they had no evidence, shouldn't he have appealed?

[–]ExdigguserPies 34 points35 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Based on the comments below and the fact that OP has not replied to anything, I think this is fake.

[–]NoLegJoe 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If they had no evidence the case wouldn't have even made it to court. Where I live one is only guilty if proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

[–]thehb 24 points25 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do you live in Pretend Land?

[–]bigkuhr 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

When the majority of your country believes an omnipotent bearded wizard is the creator of all existence and when the majority of the lower class believes the rich are working to improve everyone else's welfare, that's pretend land.

[–]Omelettes 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

the majority of the lower class believes the rich are working to improve everyone else's welfare

I assume you're talking about the US. If this is true, it's troubling. Pray ask where you got this statistic?

[–]Ftero 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's not necessarily that they believe the rich are working to help them out. I'm pretty sure they don't believe that. However, they do all believe that one day they may become filthy rich and they want the same loop holes and shenanigans available that the rich currently have so that when they are rich they too can enjoy them.

[–]Omelettes 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like to think of the rich as America's pagan gods; the poor offer up what they have, hoping Corporate Zeus and Corporate Athena will bless the money crop this year.

[–]bandit69 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's easy, just watch Fox news. They'll tell you all about it.

[–]koalaberries 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Where I live one is only guilty if proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

You've obviously never been involved in a criminal case. You're guilty until proven innocent, despite the claims to the contrary.

[–]NoLegJoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

UK criminal law is like this. I can't speak for US criminal law as I have not studied it.

[–]koalaberries 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

US criminal law says innocent until proven guilty, but the way it is actually carried out is quite the opposite. Glad to hear the application of UK criminal law is different.

[–]NoLegJoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

From what I have seen, UK justice system seems to be reasonably fair.

(waits for someone to show me otherwise)

[–]radamanthine -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Haha, how naive.

[–]DivineRobot 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Plus, if he was rich, he would've had some money to afford a decent lawyer.

[–]AnEnglishGentleman 113 points114 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Obvious troll is obvious. No dentist would do a procedure requiring anesthetic without aides who would be able to corroborate the "uncle"'s story and even ignoring that, no court would convict someone of rape based on hearsay alone.

Also, where's the news story? I'm sure something like this would have had some sort of news report by at least the local media.

Either you're making this entire thing up - pandering for sympathetic replies since every redditor seems petrified of false rape convictions, or you're omitting parts of this story. Seeing as you haven't replied since posting this, I'm going with the former.

[–]rhino369 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Direct testimony isn't "hearsay." People get convicted because of it all the time.

[–]AnEnglishGentleman 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Alright, but in a criminal case where the only evidence is one person's word against another's, no court would be able to say that they could conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the person was guilty.

[–]rhino369 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your idea of "reasonable doubt" is much higher than it is practiced. Testimony it self can be enough to be reasonable doubt. The jury just has to believe the testimony is accurate.

[–]RetroG4tor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

since every redditor seems petrified of false rape convictions,

That's because they are very real, and very much to be feared, especially due to how easily they can be made (the conviction mentioned by the OP is, depressingly enough, actually credible, judging by various real cases). Are you really so naive that you don't see this?

[–]wickedcity 74 points75 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This story doesn't make any sense at all. I call baloney.

[–]mrkiwimike -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Then you have never been in this situation! I have been in a similiar (i was accused of domestic violence so that my ex would not lose custody of my son)and I was forced to complete a Domestic Violence course. In the first session the instructor basically forces you to agree that you did something wrong, I absolutely refused and would have been in the same boat but luckily I had a really good boss who insisted that I could not do the course and would need to do one on one sessions with a psychologist/counciller and he basically let me go after two sessions - which was a violation of his requirements too but he accepted what I said. Anyway, this absolutely does happen when it comes to sex or domestic crimes the system is extremely tough on the 'criminal'!

[–]wickedcity 3 points4 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I find that extremely strange for the OP's uncle because if he was convicted, the shit has already hit the fan. Would it have really mattered if he admitted it or not? He went to jail (for idk how long) and then he gets charged again for not admitting about what he did in the past in parole? Was he admitting that he sexually assaulted someone else? No.

Did you attend jail as well or just were ordered to take a domestic violence course?

I know here (in Canada) that once you've been charged and labelled a sex offender, that's it. It doesn't matter if you admit it more or not. You've already served your time.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

parole is part of the sentence. he violated his parole terms so he doesn't get parole any more.

[–]wickedcity 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He must have done something a lot worse. It seems weird. Or is it just that easy to violate your parole?

[–]tonictuna 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anecdote: Someone I'm pretty close to was convicted of a similar sex offender type of charge. Part of the sentence/probation was completing a similar course as in the op's story. A piece of the course requires you to admit the problem.... not doing so would incur similar consequences.

[–]edman007 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Parole basically is the option within your sentence to serve it outside of prison, when you are on parole you are still serving your sentence, many of your rights are gone, cops and just walk into your house and search your house and they can throw you in prison for almost anything (if you commit almost any crime or violate the terms of your parole, you go to prison).

In this case it sounds like he got put into a course and a requirement of his parole was pass the course, in that case anything that would make him fail the course would generally put him in prison (which puts everything on the instructor, they really could through him in jail for anything), but it's for violating his parole, and he would get out at whatever time was originally determined when sentenced (minus time to get him back into prison after violating parole).

As an example of how easy it is, sometimes alcohol use can be violating parole, a cop is allowed to just walk into your house, and if they see an empty beer can in the trash they could throw you in prison for that, someone running a course can complain about you and that puts you right back into prison. As for being wrongly convicted, in a crime like this it's he said she said, and in a sex crime against a woman, everyone generally believes the woman and there is no evidence that should reasonably be expected.

[–]crimson117 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The terms of his parole included making a confession?

[–]TheMilitantMongoose 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You don't have a choice in what the court makes you do. If you get convicted, you can't refuse to go to jail because you didn't do it. One of the few things they CAN'T force you to do is admit guilt to something you didn't do. Except when they find loopholes like this.

edit: I realized I skipped a whole portion of your response. As far as them not being able to make you serve more time, technically they can't. They have loopholes though. Save you get sentenced for 5 years. They can let you out in 3 years for good behavior on the condition you go to one of these programs. A ton of these programs function similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. That is, the first step in solving the problem is to admit that you have a problem. If he refuses to admit to being a sex offender, he has failed the first step. He is labeled uncooperative and thrown out of the program. Since this program was part of the agreement that got him released early, he has now violated his parole. Faster than you can say bullshit, you are back in jail. Those in for domestic violence and sexual assault are looked at as such vile entities that even those who crusade to get innocent prisoners released will usually not look to hard into their cases. They are too busy with death row and life sentences.

[–]ringobaggins 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'd suggest you read up on some of the news stories about laws in America. This is a normal thing. However OP's Uncle was not charged again for not admitting he did something. OP's Uncle was on Parole and had to attend a class. The class forced you to admit what you were guilty of, however in this case OP's uncle did not feel he was guilty, so was kicked out of class. Being kicked out of the class is why he's in jail, not because he didn't lie about being guilty.

[–]aperfektrain 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sedation of any kind should not be done without witnesses in the room. Did your uncle do this alone with this woman?

[–]IJustMadeThis 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, I am curious about this as well. It seems pretty standard these days for doctors to have a witness in the room for any kind of procedure that could potentially create a lawsuit; there was a witness present when I got my prostate checked about a year ago.

It's possible the OPs immediate family also isn't telling the entire story to try to prevent the uncle from being ostracised by the rest of the family, but who knows.

[–]crusoe 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If this happened a decade or two ago or in a small town, people weren't as freaked / worried about false abuse allegations.

[–]strxer 108 points109 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So you're saying he performed some sort of procedure on a patient without help from one of his assistants (who would most likely corroborate his innocence)? I sense a few cavities in this story.

[–]zaichyk 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While I'm not saying for sure that this story is periodontal disease-free, I work at a dental office and some patients require anesthesia even for simple procedures (such as cleanings). In the state that I live in, the dental assistant isn't allowed to administer the gas, the dentists has to do it. And if it was a super simple procedure, there would be no reason for the assistant to be in the room. So, it is possible (yet unlikely) that the dentist was completely alone with the patient.

[–]SurlySasquatch 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Guess we will have to drill the OP till he explains.

[–]sbboard 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree. There seems to be a few floss in the story here.

[–]wellarmedsheep 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are you suggesting the OP isn't telling the tooth?

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]MikeOfAllPeople 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Puns are like your heel, aren't they?

[–]Lapland_Lapin 127 points128 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Without trying to sound like an asshole ... how can you be sure she was lying?

[–]wonkavision010 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was a counselor for sex offenders for several years. All their families defended them vigorously (many times because the offender had initially lied and said they were innocent), until the day the day the offender admitted to them that they had done it (in a therapy session with me). Nobody wants to believe their relative is capable of a sexual offense, but.... it happens all the time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If the offender was forced to admit or get sent back to jail, how can you trust the admission?

[–]wonkavision010 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They weren't forced to admit or get sent back to jail. That isn't the way it works.

[–][deleted] 58 points59 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A jury most likely wouldn't convict without some sort of evidence besides "he bad touched me." So, yes, I agree that there is probably more to this story.

[–]notjawn 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's where I'm having trouble as well. Of course juries can be dense and off target but you'd assume with him being a professional in the community, they'd nearly invite the whole town to testify as character witnesses. Or maybe he had a really crappy attorney?

[–]ceslek 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Have you heard of the West Memphis 3?

No physical evidence was produced and these three guys are still sitting in jail. The HBO documentary "Paradise Lost" is very good.

Ive seen both the first and second docs on HBO, and to be quite honest, I'm not convinced they are 100% innocent, but no physical evidence is no physical evidence.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, I live in Arkansas, so I am very familiar with that case. Mistakes do happen. I said there was most likely some more to the story, though.

[–]zzorga 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, there was evidence. Shitty tampered evidence that shouldn't have seen the light of day.

[–]ceslek 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which evidence? I can't remember off the top of my head.

I thought the most interesting aspect of the story was the muddy and bloody guy who entered a fast food joint.. and the coincidental loss of the blood scraped off the wall.

[–]zzorga 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Apparently, a guy found a generic knife coated (in his mind) the blood of unbaptized babies.

In a place where game animals were gutted.

They never bothered to test the knife.

It was admitted anyways.

[–]Kaluthir 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Plus they had one of the 3 fake-confess.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

not to mention, a poor person getting the best of a rich person in court? come on

[–]darwin2500 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's unlikely that any specific given jury would do so, but the odds that some jury at *some * point in time would do so are high.

[–]exoendo 86 points87 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A jury most likely wouldn't convict without some sort of evidence besides "he bad touched me."

juries are composed of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. So very often the defendant being arrested is enough. Do not underestimate the common stupidity of the masses.

[–]seydar 28 points29 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Jury duty is your fucking civic responsibility. If you want shit like OP's story to stop happening, fulfill your jury duty.

[–]exoendo 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would gladly and happily do jury duty. Most don't see it that way though. Most that are employed/have other things to do often see it as a waste of time. And thus we are left with often times the lowest common denominator. That's just the facts on the ground.

[–]borgerman 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've only been called for jury duty once, and that was when I was at college in a different state. Only time in my whole life I've been called, and they've had other chances

[–]iamplasma 48 points49 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

juries are composed of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

While a common perception, the reality is that's not really true, at least to the extent of the available research. If you'll forgive me using a UK-based study (PDF link), juries are about as representative of society as you get, the main deviation being that jurors are slightly more likely to be employed and non-religious (which would seem to be indicia of intelligent people, not morons).

So very often the defendant being arrested is enough.

Using Australian figures this time (because they were the first google result with usefully presented statistics), sexual assault has one of the highest acquittal rates out there (link.) If anything, this paper appears to suggest that jurors are under numerous misconceptions that reduce their likelihood of convicting.

Long story short, it's easy to claim juries get it all wrong when you're basing your decision on a two-line summary from someone associated with one side of the case (as OP is here), but in reality it's rarely the case that juries make plainly unreasonable decisions.

[–]just2quixotic 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

First, have an up vote for providing the links to studies. Second, have some anecdotal commentary on your claims.

I was on a jury for a rape trial, along with 10 other people, one policeman, and two alternates.

The policemen just tried to take charge and basically said "my fellow cops would not have arrested him if he was not guilty." The rest of the jury was ready to go along with him. They had someone to lead them, and they were content to allow him to do their 'thinking' for them. They were not stupid people, they were just ready to go along with the direction of an authority figure. Just like the Milgram Experiment (wikipedia link, forgive me) suggests most people will do.

If I had not been there to stand up and point out that 1. the prosecution had not provided anything except the girl's testimony, 2. she had recanted, 3. had a history of making false claims, 4. and tests showed the presence of a vaginal spermicide when she claimed she was staying alone with no plans to have sex.

The jury would have convicted the poor bastard. They were still inclined to do so until I made a speech about the standard being reasonable doubt; that while you might think it likely that he did commit the crime, we are obligated to declare him not guilty if there remains a reasonable doubt in your mind.

One authoritative or charismatic jury member can sway the decision regardless of how representative of society the rest of the jury members are.

[–]headlessparrot 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Police officers aren't barred from serving on juries in the US?

That, to me, is more fucked than the rest of your story. In Canada, "any police officers/lawyers/[a couple other professions I'm forgetting] can take off" is basically the first thing they say to the jury pool.

[–]just2quixotic 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, no they are not.

Theoretically, that is what the strikes the prosecution and the defense are allowed to exercise during the voir dire are supposed to take care of. Realistically, there are so many "they wouldn't have been arrested if they hadn't done something" types and people saying outrageous things in order to get out of jury duty that the defense's strikes get used up on them while the cop looks reasonable by comparison (better training to hide his prejudices is my guess since cops are expected to testify in court.)

[–]thebrokendoctor 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Law students aren't allowed, as well as military personnel. Anyone that has any background in law is prohibited, for the reason described in the above anecdote. They will be viewed by the other jurors in a more favourable light because they are the ones that have experience with law.

[–]iamplasma 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oddly, the UK is actually even more unrestricted, in that it essentially abolished all exceptions a few years ago. So, unless you're an MP, incarcerated, or the Queen, you have to serve. It used to be virtually all people connected with the justice system were exempt (as it is in Australia, where I'm originally from), but no longer, and apparently they've had surprisingly good results from widening the jury pool. They also abolished the preemptory challenge, so that juries are truly about as random as you can get.

[–]fluidambient 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yup. I thought the whole point of 12 angry men is that "when people sit by idle bad things can happen."

If life has taught me anything it's that: people don't want to be bothered, people don't want to think for themselves, and people just don't care about one another.

[–]iamplasma 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair, some of the grounds for acquittal in that movie were a complete crock ("The woman didn't wear glasses, but her nose looked like she might wear them sometimes, so clearly she made it all up"?)

[–]fluidambient 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's not the neatest form of logic but I could agree with that. To be honest they should've recalled that witness and asked if she wore glasses.

[–]catch10110 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Jury doesn't get to recall witnesses, or ask questions.

Once you are deliberating, you can only ask for clarification on points of law and things like that.

[–]fluidambient 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah but they could secretly stalk the woman and find out.

[–]Zagrobelny 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That guy had a really shitty lawyer. Cops and relatives of cops are always the first to go at voir dire. Hell, once I got into an argument with both the prosecutor and the defense attorney during jury questioning and they let a cop's wife off the jury before they kicked me out.

[–]just2quixotic 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He had a public defender. So, I would say that your assessment of his lawyer is likely accurate.

[–]thebrokendoctor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sounds like a real life version of 12 Angry Men.

[–]70yearoldscotch 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Jury selection is different in the UK than it is in the US

[–]iamplasma 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh, I'm not denying that. In particular, the UK has essentially totally random juries, with minimal rights to challenge, whereas the US has a much more extensive voir dire and challenge system. However, that still only makes very limited difference in all but the most high-profile of cases (where the reason for selecting from a huge pool is to avoid prejudgment, not to select on personal criteria). I don't see any reason to think the results would be enormously different, and I can assure you the "12 people too stupid to get out of jury service" meme is just as widespread here.

[–]cagefightapuma 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How so?

[–]70yearoldscotch 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#United_states

In the UK, there is much less in depth questioning whereas in the US, the prosecution or defense can remove jurors for fairly trivial reasons. Look up peremptory strike

So while it is a long shot to say those serving jury duty were too stupid to get out of it, its not a completely ridiculous statement

[–]logicjam 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Prosecution and defense are limited in their peremptory strikes in almost all jurisdictions. It is kind of ridiculous to assume that someone who wasn't struck during voir dire is too stupid to get out of jury duty. Some people have a sense of civic duty after all.

[–]70yearoldscotch 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not saying that prosecution and defense will strike down qualified jurors, but if someone wants to get out of jury duty it is not that difficult.

[–]logicjam 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's why you can have some faith in a well-chosen jury. Ironically, you don't want people serving on juries if they don't want to be there. They're the ones who stop paying attention or don't really care what happens to the parties.

[–]malius89 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

every time someone replies with sources and studies, i smile and feel really happy.

[–]catch10110 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I really hate the idea that jury duty is bad, and you should try to get out of it. It's very difficult, but it's your civic duty, and I don't think it's something to try to get out of, or that you are stupid if you don't.

That said, in my experience, there are definitely people who seem to think the fact that a defendant is charged with a crime is enough evidence to find them guilty.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In fact ... you should just expect the common stupidity of the masses. They do not tend to disappoint. It's like a well-oiled machine that produces ignorance in anyone who encounters it.

[–]power-bottom 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Seriously. They acquitted OJ. The lawyers on both sides their time before the case making sure that any smart jurors don't see the bench.

[–]gsfgf 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The state failed to prove OJ's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecutor stands up and says "this glove belongs to the killer" and the defendant appears to be unable to put on the glove, that is absolutely reasonable doubt. Also, the LAPD completely fucked up the investigation. He almost certainly committed the crime, but that does not mean he should have been convicted when the state failed to overcome its burden of proof.

[–]Bixby66 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also most police forces close their case solely on witness reports and interrogation. Very few cops have any sort detective skills what so ever.

[–]theleprechaun69 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

many citations needed. And Reddit comments can't be sources.

[–]catch10110 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I recently sat on a jury, and the prosecution definitely made a point of making sure we knew all about each and every officer's training (in this case it was mainly evidence collection).

Just my opinion, but I would think if an officer was involved in the case that didn't have adequate training for whatever their role in the investigation was, the defense would be all over that.

[–]xacked 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Real laughter was produced upon reading this statement

[–]golfjunkie 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have never been called to a jury and I have no doubt that I could get out of it if I was called. I don't think I would though. I have always been interested in jury nullification, mostly in regard to drug crimes. If I had the chance to put jury nullification in action against a law I don't support, I couldn't let that opportunity slip away.

[–]pcarvious 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You'd be surprised how many cases like this there are and how little evidence people can be convicted on. There's an entire blog dedicated to these sort of stories.

Edit: Here's the blog

[–]RetroG4tor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Upvote because this is a good blog. I was just thinking of posting the link in case your link wouldn't turn out to be it.

[–]poubelle 33 points34 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, gosh, she was poor, so obviously she was dishonest!

[–]Osiris32 26 points27 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sadly for you, OP, there isn't anything that can be done. Parole is not a right, it's something you have to apply for and be granted. If you do not abide by the terms of your parole, you go back. If you don't like the terms of your parole, tough, those are the only terms you get, and there is not really any negotiations.

I'm truly sorry if he was wrongly convicted. If he was, he needs to file for an appeal (there are any number of ways to do this) and see if he can get the conviction overturned. It's spendy, yes, but it's pretty much the only way.

As for what happened in the class, those classes are meant to try and help reform sex offenders, and admitting to a problem is one of their first steps. Even if he didn't do it, that was not the place to become hard headed.

[–]formulaic 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Even if he didn't do it, that was not the place to become hard headed.

Bull fucking shit. I always take these claims with a bit of salt, but assuming he actually is innocent, there's no way he should lie just to get out.

What the fuck happened to a sense of pride. You don't just go and say you're a criminal because you were wrongly convicted. You fight that any way you can.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's not necessarily true. While you're certainly correct that there is no general right to parole, in the jurisdictions with which I'm familiar there is, in fact, a level of due process afforded the parolee when it comes to putative violations. It would help greatly to know what jurisdiction the OP refers to here.

[–]Osiris32 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes and no. Yes, it's part of the sentencing structure for almost all crimes (unless the sentence states that you are incarcerated for life) however it's still a privilege that you are granted by means of your behavior, and the limitations placed on you are to determine if you have altered your behavior. If you cannot abide by those restrictions, then you go back to jail. And in some cases Parole can be revoked prior to release, based on behavior in prison.

Now, there are differences between parole and probation, but that really isn't part of the equation here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, you're not reading me: what you're saying is essentialy true, but it's incomplete. Pursuant to several SCOTUS opinions, a certain level of due process (admittedly far, far short of, say, a trial) MUST be accorded to those on supervised release before a violation can be found. Hence it is highly misleading to suggest that because it is not a "right," the state can revoke without a hearing; in fact, they can't. The seminal case in this regard is Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). In Gagnon, the Court defined what process is due at a probation violation hearing. The Court held that prior to revocation, a probationer is entitled to, inter alia, “the right to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation).” Id. at 786.

And before you bother, yes, I know the difference between parole and probation. However, I GUARANTEE that any prisoner released in the terms upon which the OP recites is under a supervised release (probably) probation itself, btw) that implicates Gagnon and its progeny.

[–]Osiris32 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, obviously, yes, you have your 5th/14th amendment rights to due process in a legal situation such as a parole/probation revocation hearing. What I'm stating is that if valid evidence is present that you, in fact, violated the terms of your parole/probation, then you are sent back to jail. If the terms of the parole included completing a sex offenders rehabilitation class, and, as the OP stated, the person was kicked out, then that's enough evidence to send him back. The convict obviously has the right to defense of the situation during the hearing. However, based on the statements that the OP made, I'm not certain that a judge would find for the convict in this case. Simply believing that you were wrongly convicted wouldn't be enough to warrant refusal to participate in a court-mandated class.

Maybe if an appeal was already in place and was awaiting trial? That's an aspect of judicial procedure that I'm not familiar enough with to make a solid statement. I'm a lot better with criminal law and applicable SCOTUS rulings.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh, okay, I half-misunderstood you. I certainly agree that the underlying merits of the conviction (i.e., a claim of actual innocense) won't really hold any water in this context. What I was suggesting is that he could challenge the post-conviction "allocution" that this class apparently requires as impermissible in itself, not that he wasn't kicked out of the class--obviously, he was.

[–]Osiris32 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hmm, hadn't thought of that. It would take a damn good lawyer to pull it off, though. And it would certainly help if an appeal was already in place, showing that the defendant was already questioning the conviction. I'm not sure if a judge would go for it, though, worrying that by granting the challenge, it would set case precedence that would allow further challenges to the sex offender class, slowly tearing it apart until it did nothing.

[–]GhostedAccount 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Poor people can't afford decent lawyers. Court appointed lawyers suck and can easily result in an innocent man being convicted.

That being said, without the details of the case, we have no way of knowing if he was convicted based on no evidence or not.

[–]l0c0dantes 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But, dentists aren't poor?

[–]GhostedAccount 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It depends on the order the collapse of his office happened. It is very possible he was out of money by the time the trial happened.

Also he had to have a shitty lawyer if he got convicted based on no evidence.

Which obviously suggests the OP is lying about his innocence.

[–]tsunami2033 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How long ago did the original incident occur? and did your uncle use nitrous oxide in his clinic? The reason I ask is that nitrous oxide has a documented side effect of causing sexual fantasies/halucinations in women which has resulted in dentists being accused of sexual assault (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6930435). In light of this research perhaps your uncle has grounds for an appeal?

[–]rufusthelawyer 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is either A) a small piece of the story, or more likely B) a troll.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]RichardBurr -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

agree to the terms as in forced by law

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]surfnsound 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're not forced to accept parole.

In NJ and MA, and possibly more states I don't know of, sex offenders are given a condition of parole supervision for life as part of their sentencing. They are forced to accept it when their custodial sentence is over. Typically, some form of sex offender treatment would be a condition of this parole.

Now, normally, if someone released on parole violates their parole conditions, they are simply returned to prison to serve the remainder of their custodial term (unless a period of parole eligibility is reestablished.) However in the case of sex offenders, because their custodial term has already ended, the only way states can do a run around on an eighth amendment violation, is to actually charge them with a new crime, which in NJ is a completely fictitious "Violation of the Special Conditions of Parole Supervision for Life," a class 4 misdimeanor with a minimum sentencing requirement of 180 days in jail.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

When sentences are inflated such that only with parole are they reasonable for the crime... then yes, people are forced to accept it or accept a punishment out of proportion for that which they were convicted of.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really? We're not talking about murder, after all. Let's say he is truly guilty of the crime in question. What number of years do you think he should get for it? Also, please tell us how many an armed robber, a burglar, and an embezzler should get. Please explain why some get less than others.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What makes one crime different than the others is the amount of damage done, and the likelihood of the crime being repeated.

The likelihood of it being repeated here is nearly zero... even if he is some kind of a perv, it's clear that he only does these sorts of things in the capacity of his profession, which is now forever denied him.

If the definition of "violated" that we are working under is "raped" or something similarly destructive

I get the impression they're talking about sexual assault, but not rape.

Here you will see the recidivism rates for sexual assault

Yes, I'm aware of those. Which speak greatly to his likely innocence. If he really was guilty, where are all the other accusations?

Sequestering them from the general public is not only a fitting punishment, but a safe one.

But they're not interested in protecting the public.

Instead, they want his confession... as if that protects anyone. Why is that?

Psychologically, we know that humans are a peculiar kind of monkey that loves seeing others confess... regardless of whether they're guilty or not. In the Middle Ages, that's when the torture would (mostly) stop.

That's when it would stop regardless of whether the confession were genuine.

And that's when things are stopping here. He's either tortured in prison, or he can confess to the priest of the therapy group.

So I point out how parole and sentencing have been modified so that they're fundamentally unfair... and you rebut with "he should go away forever, because he needs to be sequestered from society".

It's a peculiar reply. It wants to sound principled, but it rests on a foundation of bullshit so deep that it's just another way of laughing at the man and wishing that things like this continue for him forever.

[–]fffaek 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Rape is really fucked up. I think it is pretty safe to say that most people would support much harsher sentences for rape than any of the other crimes you mentioned. Almost comparable to murder.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's easy to tell others to "fight the system" while you're sitting here.

He just wants his uncle to get out of jail. He should get out, THEN try to change the system with his story. His parole officers don't give a shit.

[–]Nixhatter 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Only thing to help him (in my eye's) is to file for an appeal and hire a better lawyer.

[–]rigpig 11 points12 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

too many holes in the story. like the others said if she was under sedation the doctor would have had an assistant who could prove his innocence, if he was in there alone with her the only person who knows the truth is your uncle, and sorry to burst your bubble but people tend to lie when they are caught

[–]CaptLudwig 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you don't have any money, and the case is truly as bad as you make it out to be (which I am reasonably skeptical of) then go to the media. They eat this shit up.

[–]simucal 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is why you always have a female hygienist in the room at all times.

[–]tkdguy[!] 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Assistants help a dentist with procedures, hygienists clean your teeth.

[–]downneck 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and testify on your behalf in court when some cunt makes up a story to get money out of you

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He should talk to his lawyer.

[–]outoftimeintheusa 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Go to an Alanon meeting

[–]RofyM 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, but how would she know she was sexually abused by HIM if she was under anesthesia? Without evidence, an appeal SHOULD have been very possible. Also if he was a dentist, then wouldn't some of his co-workers be called to witness?

[–]ironfroggy_ 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe you don't know you uncle as well as you think you do.

I thought I knew mine...

[–]bandit69 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Unfortunately, about the only thing that has a chance of doing any good in our legal system is a really expensive lawyer - and even that's no guarantee.

[–]littlemonster010 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why would you assume he's innocent? Why would you assume you have any knowlegdge over what your uncle might do sexually? I have uncles who I know well and I admire. I would never assume that I know about what they might enjoy sexually (whether it might be appropriate or inappropriate).

[–]Fookananer 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

When I was a senior in high school I got into a fight with a bully who picked on me since my sophomore year. One day the strap of my backpack snapped so I was required to carry all my books and papers, he came up from behind me and knocked everything out of my hands...paper and books went flying everywhere, and he did it in front of my girlfriend (my first girlfriend) who I was only dating for a few weeks. I SNAPPED. I turned around while he was laughing and punched him in the throat. Needless to say he went down and I didn't stop smashing his head into the ground until a teacher pulled me off. He pressed charges and I had to attend an anger management class for a year. I never in my life got into a fight before that, and never have since. I am the most calm person I know...in that particular class there were men who beat their wives on a regular basis. They did the same thing to me, and I did the same thing your uncle did, and the same result happened. On that day I decided I wanted to study law in college to defend against these types of situations. I now (Age 29) practice law outside of Denver CO. I cant necessarily defend your uncle, but I would be MORE than willing to offer my professional advise.

[–]Oscar_Rowsdower 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Out of sheer curiosity, what would be the first few courses of action you'd take if you were in the uncle's shoes?

[–]inthrees 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your uncle pleaded not guilty, I presume? The class can't require him to change his plea. He can successfully fight this.

[–]PatrickE 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He was already convicted. So he's guilty.

[–]ddfreedom 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

found guilty..they can't make him change his plea...and this shouldn't be an option...besides decisions are reversed...what travesty of justice went donw here...seems a little fishy. I can't see how testinomy alone can convict?

[–]rawbdor 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They were not asking him to change his plea. The guy who ran the class was asking him what he was "convicted of".

The guy that ran the class i guess tried to get him to admit to what he was convicted of.

According to OP, the guy who ran the class never tried to have him change his plea or admit to actually committing the crime. He was only asking what OP's relative was "convicted of", and the relative refused to reveal it.

[–]seanterisu 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

admit to what he was convicted of.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[–]raccoozie 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"admit to what he was convicted of"

meaning admit that the conviction was correct and that he did commit the crime.

[–]rawbdor 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

well um... erm... hrmm...

... oh. Yeah I guess I feel kinda dumb now. Thanks.

[–]Quarkster 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here's how testimony alone can convict:

  1. The prosecutor ignores his role of seeking justice and instead tries all cases brought before him. This happens all the time and nothing can be done about it.
  2. The judge ignores the fact that there's no evidence and allows the trial to proceed rather than acquitting, as he should. Also happens all the time, and very little can be done about it.
  3. The jury auto-convicts because they believe the woman's sob story. Happens all the time and nothing can be done about it.

Justice sucks.

[–]Shuggus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes if he claimed not-guilty it sounds wrong that in the case that he is wrongfully imprisoned that he would be forced to swallow his pride and state he is guilty despite legally claiming otherwise, even though the state and him don't agree on that.

[–]KillerMoooose 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...How do you even know if you've been violated under anesthesia anyway? =/

[–]no1113 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Write a fucking book. I know that sounds crass and assholeish, but I actually mean it. This sounds like it would really be a kick ass story about the fucked up, shitty injustices that happen on this planet.

Sorry about what's happening to your uncle.

How much longer is he being incarcerated for? How old is he?

[–]voteupordown 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

America's prisons are full of innocent men who were convicted of sexual abuse. Most of the guilty suspects take plea bargains and cooperate with sex offender treatment, so they eventually finish their time and move on, but the falsely accused often stubbornly refuse to admit guilt, and the plea bargain model of criminal justice sternly punishes anyone who refuses to take a plea bargain with terms that are 10 times longer than people who cooperate and take the plea. Innocent people are not allowed to participate in prison sex offender treatment, or in parole sex offender after care treatment, so their already long sentences are made longer because they are not given early release or allowed to stay on parole if they do get released. In some states it is becoming fashionable to punish non-repentant sex offenders by putting them into mental health lockups even after they have finished their time. This so-called "civil commitment" is constitutional after a person sentence is expired for the same reason that the sex offender registry is required even for people who finished their punishment - it is not considered a punishment, but instead is considered treatment for the good of the person and the protection of society. Once he finally repents and admits his guilt and accepts state brain washing, then he allowed to graduate (a rare occurrence).

tl/dr the system sucks

[–]cocoabeach 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is a book called "words that work: it's not what you say, it's what people hear"

The book is actually about business and politics, but does explain what might have happened to your Uncle during parole. There is a right way and a wrong way to defend yourself in a situation like your uncles. You have to be really careful of the words you choose and the way you say them. The same thing applies when you are defending yourself in court. If he is innocent like you believe, I would bet that his lack of understanding this is what caused him to be convicted in court and screwed over afterwords.

In a perfect world being perceived as hard headed should not even matter in a trial, but in the real world it does. Unless he is mentally challenged choosing to be hard headed at a trial, and then also during his parole makes what ever happens his fault. Keep in mind I am not saying he should have lied, I am saying he has to choose what and how he says things carefully.

That being said, family almost never believes that another member of their family can be guilty of something like that. Choosing to point out that the only available evidence was tainted because the woman was "very" poor and therefore she must have been lying, makes me wonder how logical you can be in this case.

[–]antonbe 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would break that bitches kneecaps if my I was put into your situation. Straight up ruin her life until she decided to come clean about her bullshit. Sometimes the law fails.

Don't they, you know, need a DNA sample? Isn't there a rape testing kit? What the fuck is this shit?

[–]m0llusk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Broken justice system, again. Change needs to start deep down. This is happening because of a focus on what he is accused of doing in the past, but what matters is the chance that he will victimize in the future. It might also work to use this as an example of the need for systemic change in honor of the life your uncle had taken away from him. Just some thoughts. EDIT: When serving the public, record everything on video if at all possible.

[–]wonkavision010 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why would you assume you know what you uncle might have done to a patient while she was under anesthesia? I was a counselor for sex offenders for several years. None of their families believed what they had done (despite lots of evidence to the contrary), until the offender actually admitted it to their faces. Even if you don't want to believe it, you never really know what someone is capable of.

[–]Psychomedic 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He should either stop lying or tell his nephew to stop being such a liar.

[–]VaginaWarrior 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Similar problem happened in my family. I remember the failings of the injustice system well. So much so that I have never looked at police, judges, or lawyers as anything but a bunch of idiots since. I'm really, truly, sorry about your uncle. The best he can do is just go with it at this point. Some people claim you can't know for sure he didn't do it, but when it is an isolated case and the woman clearly has other problems, it's the one thing that is hurting his marriage, and you know your uncle well, the answer is pretty clear that the detectives are lazy assholes who don't give one single shit about human life. High and mighty power-tripping fools, in my opinion. I would say just visit him all you can and support him through it. And forgive the crazy lady, otherwise risk carrying her around with you everywhere you go. Nobody likes sociopaths living in their head.

[–]rain_check 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is something I've felt too. Its harsh, but you're right. All we can do is show love and support for the one going through it.

[–]aalabrash -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Blows my mind how much of a joke "innocent until proven guilty" is.

[–]exoendo 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

umm he was tried in the court of law and "proven guilty" in the court of law. so your comment about due process doesn't make much sense. that said, I am leaning towards this guys side of the story, based on the fact that he stuck to his guns and refused to say he did those things

[–]iamplasma 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am leaning towards this guys side of the story, based on the fact that he stuck to his guns and refused to say he did those things

Honestly, that's not as strong an indication as you'd think. Most of us innately believe that liars will come clean, and that only honest people stick to their guns like that. However, liars can and do press their lies to the very end all the time. Indeed, this is plainly such a case, since either the uncle is lying and sticking to it to the end, or the "victim" was lying and stuck to it to the end. If anything, as I understand it this kind of insistence is especially common when it comes to sexual assault.

In saying the above I want to stress that I am not saying the uncle is guilty or innocent, just that it's extremely hard to tell. I'd want a hell of a lot more information about the trial before expressing an opinion, as it'd seem likely there was more to it than just "woman woke up with vague feeling she may have been molested, instant guilty verdict".

[–]exoendo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

in this spot though, the uncle has much more to lose with regards to continuing to lie. I.e. going back to jail. Everyone in the class already assumed he was a sex offender, so if he really is one, he isn't gaining much by not coming clean. In contrast, If he were innocent there is something to be said for staying true to yourself and your character, regardless of the consequences.

[–]iamplasma 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

the uncle has much more to lose with regards to continuing to lie

He also has a huge amount to lose by confessing, in that everyone he knows is going to know he is a sex offender, when it's plainly the case that he's convinced many (such as the nephew here) that he's innocent. It's an enormous stigma, and the loss/benefit equation is the same whether he's innocent or guilty.

EDIT: Child molester -> sex offender

[–]Darkjediben 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except that if this was in a sex offender class or rehab or something, odds are that nobody would find out about it. And even if they did, how hard would it be to tell people that he admitted it just because he didn't want to lose his parole? No matter how you spin it, it's WAY easier for him to have admitted to it, whether he did it or not.

[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Child molester? What?

[–]iamplasma 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, meant to say sex offender, but obviously had some wires crossed there. I've changed it now.

[–]Quarkster 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The 'proof' was a joke, assuming there really was no evidence other than testimony.

[–]exoendo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i know.. but my point was that "innocent until proven guilty" refers to due process, which op's uncle had.

[–]Quarkster 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not really. He had some bullshit that looked like due process.

[–]exoendo 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

not liking the result is != to absence of due process

[–]Quarkster 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm fairly certain that conviction in the absence of evidence has been ruled by the supreme court to not constitute a fair trial, but I may be mistaken in that regard.

Regardless, I'm calling it an unfair trial as described by the OP

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The colour of your skin, ugliness, type of genitals, accent, dress, all these can drastically affect your rate of conviction.

The difference between a poor, ugly, poorly spoken black man and a rich, pretty, well spoken white woman is huge. Both in likelihood of conviction and length of punishment.

[–]SevenDeadlyNinjas 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Women are precious flowers, whom are violated by evil men and their evil penises.

[–]Burlyman78 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Try contacting the Innocence Project and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

what, has the concept of revenge never crossed anyone's minds? and then you leave the country and never look back.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

he will be avenged.

[–]henazo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sounds like a fucked up situation. As shitty as it is your uncle needs to accept it and just play ball.

[–]pstu 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

PAGING OP TO THEIR THREAD.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't they have lawyers for people with low income?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not only that but if you can get a lawyer to look into her past and finacial history could help your side yeah? This probably didn't help but just thought I'd share :/ I'm very sorry about your uncle, I've come across a few people in my life that do anything and everything to get money or something from innocent people.

[–]skimmer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Does The Innocence Project only deal with people on death row, or do they have volunteers to help with people in for lesser crimes?

[–]coldfusion079 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Law Abiding Citizen. Document the whole thing.

I'll just leave this here.

[–]janeaustang 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]ninekilnmegalith 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Try an find an Innocence Project in your area, they usually help people that are in jail/prison for crimes they did not commit, if they can't help you they will refer you to someone who can.

[–]Lastofsummerwine 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That story sounds very familiar, refuse to admit, do more time.

[–]parasiticfiend 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i'm not saying he did or didn't do what he is accused of, but even if he had confessed he would probably still be sitting in a jail cell.

[–]BBQCopter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Appeal?

[–]boredatheist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I had a conversation with my ex about this. http://deathdrone.com/convos/anne0ramirez@gmail.com/2011-06-18

Basically, I think your uncle is innocent, but he's still fucked. Find a big pot of money and hire a lawyer to work on his appeal is the best advice anyone can give you. The media doesn't care about this story for the same reason reddit doesn't care: they will blindly assume your uncle is guilty because of the incredibly strong bias humans have against men who are accused of rape. There's no story here. This is business as usual.

/r/MensRights would probably be far more sympathetic towards this. You might want to try reposting there.

[–]pho75 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What state?

[–]hoyfkd 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

if you met the lady, it was very clear that she was very poor, only looking for a money settlement

You might want to contact Ben Stein. I think he can help you craft an editorial and possibly turn you on to a good lawyer.

[–]JD_SLICK 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love how Reddit sees right through this

[–]Chrono68 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My dad is in prison for life for beating a pregnant woman to death. Our state laws are totally fucked as killing her (was first class A which is death penalty but changed to class 1) only puts him in for 45 years (21 spent) but killing the fetus is a class B which is guaranteed life. I feel your pain, bro.

My best advice is keep him mentally strong. Visit him as much as possible to let him know you guys still care about him. Sadly, violating his parole screwed him to the wall. Even though he isn't guilty he now has to play by their rules. That means obeying any and all classes he has to take, doing lame church groups in prison, etc. He needs anything and everything possible to make him look 'reformed'.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You are trolling, fail

[–]Rob_V 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So, today's lesson: If you're a dentist, tape all procedures involving patients under anesthesia.

[–]Travesura 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know someone that was in that conundrum even before the trial. He was ordered to take sex offender classes, but was not cooperating by confessing to what he didn't do. So they kicked him out of the class and sent him to jail. They dropped the charges the day before the trial.

[–]Osiris32 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Uhh, doesn't work like that. Sex offender classes are part of your sentencing, so you are only forced to go if you have already been convicted. Your story has some big holes.

[–]Travesura 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, true story. the ordered classes were requested by DHS, technically not as part of the criminal charge, but having to do with his daughter being taken from the home.

Revoking his bail was a retaliatory (and probably illegal) act.

[–]Osiris32 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ok, that's still not making any sense to me. Having a child removed from a home would not be grounds for him to be given mandatory classes, unless he already had a previous conviction upon which any further conduct would warrant such actions.

As for bail revocation, there are very strict terms that you must follow while out on bail, and, just like parole, you don't have to take them, you can stay in jail. So if he violated a rule, he get's to go back.

[–]Travesura 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, I can only relate it the way I saw it go down.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree that it doesn't make sense. I'm just wondering why you think that means such a thing would not happen.

[–]Quarkster 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Plenty of illegal bullshit happens in the criminal justice system.

Example: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/28/133316504/amid-budget-woes-ky-cuts-juvenile-drug-court

This kind of stuff goes on for years wihtout anything being done about it

[–]Osiris32 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Umm, how is this illegal? This is a sad story about budgetary woes and some hard decisions, not illegal action on the part of the judicial system. Phasing out a government program is not illegal. If someone were sent to drug court based on faked evidence, or if someone lied during testimony, or if a court officer acted in an unethical or immoral way during the trial, then it would be illegal. So what are you trying to prove? Or did you just post the wrong link?

[–]Quarkster 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dammit, wrong link. Standby please

[–]Quarkster 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Appeal and then when you win take her to criminal court for slander, defamation of character, etc ... make sure she knows what the inside of a cell looks like. If your uncle is in the right she deserves to rot in jail for a long time.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think your uncle was a molester. Rich people don't go to jail because poor people accuse them of something without any evidence. Get your head out of your ass: your uncle is a bad man.

[–]me_grimlock_king 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL not a single person believes your boring story

[–]blueeyedgod 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is a known side effect of anesthesia that many female patients hallucinate sexual-assaults by their dentists or doctors. I recall that Valium was particularly likely to cause female patients to hallucinate sexual-assaults by their male medical care giver. Usually appeals have to be instigated in a timely manner, but he may be have some avenue for retrial or at least use the facts I mentioned above to somehow mitigate his punishment. One problem with the American justice system is that it is extra harsh on innocent people who get convicted because they show no "remorse" for the crimes they did not commit.

Google the anesthesia - sex assault connection - here are some links I found:

http://brucegoldfarb.com/sex-lies-and-anesthesia http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08176/892099-52.stm

I feel very sorry for your Uncle - of course I cannot know if he is innocent - but your story rings true to me. I am not a lawyer nor any kind of legal expert - but if you PM me on this I may be of more help to you - I am smarter and more knowledgeable than most lawyers so perhaps I can help.