Look I am simply saying if the woman was False Accusing someone she needs to be Vilified, the players will now be the ones seen by anyone without a Husker Bias, as guilty.
As a Husker fan I would like t think that the players are innocent here, but Lack of evidence for a Legal Case and being Innocent are not one in the same!
Lack of evidence and falsely accusing are not one in the same either.
This ^^^ I work in the criminal justice system and I pray that this young woman seeks out the help she needs, you see too many times a woman who feels that she wasn't done justice turn to the wrong things to cope.
Unless nothing criminal happened and she tried to make it look like it did. How about those who may have been falsely accused and have had their futures put in peril? It can go both ways. I don't know who is right or wrong, but wish I knew more facts about what happened.
Something should happen one way or the other IMO.
How though, exactly? There's not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges, but that doesn't mean a crime never happened. This woman could very well not remember the incident and 100% believe she's a victim. If that's the case, she should not be vilified.
I think everyone here should just stop suggesting what should or shouldn't happen.
I feel the woman needs to be given a polygraph in cases of 'he said, she said' as far as rape is concerned. If she fails, then no charges should be filed and no report publicly made of anything about the entire matter. Keep things totally quiet until she passes the test. Then the police should approach the accused and proceed vigorously, but confidentially, to corroberate the crime. Release the names, places and times and so on ONCE the events are relatively well substantiated by the lie detector test, the accused has had an opportunity to provide his or her side of the story, allibi, etc. Anyone accused of a felony should be given a reasonable opportunity to clear him or herself before the publication of the arrest or formal criminal charges are filed. Far too many people assume based on the mere fact of charges being filed, that the accused is guilty! This is NOT true. Sadly, however, juries are certainly very heavily leaning for the prosecution and the presumption of innocense is all but ignored. Any accused who fails to affirmatively provide evidence on innocense will likely be convicted with very flimsy minimal evidence. Testimony of just one witness is often all that is required to convict of serious felony offenses. Even murder. If you are ever involved in the criminal justice system, you will become aware of how difficult your chances are of winning an acquittal. 90% plus of cases end in convictions. The defense attorney has a long, uphill battle in almost any case!
But..........lie detector tests aren't admissible in court. They are only helpful in a follow-up interview that can be used as leverage against the person who failed said lie detector test. No suspect has ever been named by the way correct? So people are making assumptions on who was involved and then slanting their view towards who they think are the accused.
I don't believe this is accurate. I was just perusing an article from the Journal Star about polygraph tests from a few years back that said the tests are admissible if both parties agree to the test before the test is given.
That said, they are still widely debated, especially because they can be intentionally/unintentionally manipulated. There was a case a few years back of a man who failed a lie detector test in a murder case, but DNA evidence proved he didn't commit the crime. In later interviews, he said he was extremely nervous and afraid of lying during the test, and an investigator said sometimes those same emotions can appear like someone is lying.
What Are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).
States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the test's accuracy.
- California lawyers, for instance, can present the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.
- Georgia law, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees.
- According to Florida lawyers, it is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.
The states in which polygraphs are
inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. In these states, even if both parties wish to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very rare scenarios).
- Some states, like New York and Texas, forbid their use completely in all employment and law enforcement contexts.
- Other states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause (to obtain search warrants).
Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion). For a complete list of the state and federal rules regarding polygraphs, you can check
here for your state.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html#sthash.LYNjDE02.dpuf
