The Sandusky situation has me thinking. It was written that the government needed more than a he said he said proof to take down Sandusky. Sandusky was a revered figure in the communty, working for a premier, well respected, company. He also had a great reputation in the community and a list of charitible and community projects that was exemplary. Should that make a difference in prosecuting someone?

The Sandusky situation has me thinking. It was written that the government needed more than a he said he said proof to take down Sandusky. Sandusky was a revered figure in the communty, working for a premier, well respected, company. He also had a great reputation in the community and a list of charitible and community projects that was exemplary. Should that make a difference in prosecuting someone?

 

Sure, why not? But if they do the prosecution will just counter with his long standing history of being a sexual predator to combat the "good" character evidence.

This is why though that character stuff is not allowed UNLESS the defendant brings it up first. If a defendant wants to open that bag, they open themselves up to that bad stuff too. Sometimes it's just better to leave it out entirely and give the jury just the he said - he said stuff.

The Sandusky situation has me thinking. It was written that the government needed more than a he said he said proof to take down Sandusky. Sandusky was a revered figure in the communty, working for a premier, well respected, company. He also had a great reputation in the community and a list of charitible and community projects that was exemplary. Should that make a difference in prosecuting someone?

 

I don't think the question is clear.

 

Should that make a difference in deciding whether or not to prosecute someone or to investigate claims against them?

 

or

 

Should character be brought up at trial as relevant information wrt allegations and credibility?

I don't think the question is clear.

 

Should that make a difference in deciding whether or not to prosecute someone or to investigate claims against them?

 

or

 

Should character be brought up at trial as relevant information wrt allegations and credibility?

 

 

This. Should the suspect's reputation factor into the investigation and any threshold?

I know the first thing I would say is look at my record, I've never been in trouble, never even a hint of scandal. Look of my community involvement, etc. The same as if the suspect was a three time offender, in and out of jail, etc.

I know the first thing I would say is look at my record, I've never been in trouble, never even a hint of scandal. Look of my community involvement, etc. The same as if the suspect was a three time offender, in and out of jail, etc.

 

Of course reputation is going to play into it. You are going to be way more keen on accusations against either an accused or convicted offender, versus someone with a clean slate.

This. Should the suspect's reputation factor into the investigation and any threshold?

 

Absolutely not.

 

Depends on the nature of the crime, but generally going to strongly lean no.

 

another edit!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Edited November 17, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

To me, it kinda depends...

 

In Sandusky's case, he used his own charity to find victims (if indeed he is guilty).

 

If he was accused of embezzlement and giving to his own charity, that's a little different.

 

And yes, I know sexual assault and embezzlement are on two completely different levels of felony. I was just trying to use an example.

 

Although a sexual predator is a sexual predator, no matter what the circumstances are.

 

 

The challenge is this is one of the only times a young child is both powerless and all powerful. Look at the Syracuse allegations. The names that the victims offered to collaborate didn't. So you have two relatives accusing the coach, but that's it. So learning from history do we

 

look at Sandusky's case, which seems so clear and say, protect the kids, lock up this monster.

or

look at Duke lacrosse and say, hold on, don't rush to judgement?

 

 

Here's the real issue Tex.

 

In an ideal world, everyone would be investigated fairly and all accusations and charges would hold equal merit at the beginning. The police would then investigate all of them and determine whether there is merit, regardless of anyone's reputation. Charges would then be brought impartially, and then guilt would be determined on that same basis. Furthermore, if charges were never brought against a person, then the fact that they were investigated would remain unknown and no damage would happen to the accused.

 

But that's not the system we have. There are only so many police resources, so the police have to judge how to deploy those resources. They have to have a certain level of belief to begin a serious investigation. And news that "We're investigating person X for raping young boys" will damage that person's reputation even if the investigation fully exonerates them somehow.

I'm not certain that is the ideal world. Is it really ideal if we treat repeat offenders with lengthy criminal histories the same as grandma with a lifetime of service and good deeds the same? It seems like we are going to err on one side or the other and perhaps we should err on the side of victims, but it doesn't seem fair.

I'm not certain that is the ideal world. Is it really ideal if we treat repeat offenders with lengthy criminal histories the same as grandma with a lifetime of service and good deeds the same? It seems like we are going to err on one side or the other and perhaps we should err on the side of victims, but it doesn't seem fair.

If you had infinite resources in police departments and there was absolutely no downside associated with investigating allegations, why wouldn't you?

 

It's the fact that these 2 standards aren't met which forces you to evaluate the veracity based not on the claim but on the claimant.

The more I think about it the more I agree with your post regarding investigating.