Unfortunately true, I know someone who just spent ten day on jury duty
without pay (had to take it out of vacation time) on a domestic abuse case
where the wife did not want to prosecute, the husband may have lost his job
due to the case, the evidence showing she was battered was a photo looking
like she was going out for dinner (no marks at all). The only ones wanting
the case was the prosecutor and a domestic abuse agency (most likely federal
funded). And this was the second time, the first time it ended up in a split
jury, this time it was not guilty. Your tax dollars at work. On top of that
the courthouse was a viral cesspool and my friend picked up a summer flu
which he gave to me and I have been running a fever for 4 week.
This was really judicial abuse.
At 08:26 PM 07/28/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Samantha Atkins wrote,
>> I disagree. Adobe claimed to have been wronged by its
>> encryption technique being broken. If Adobe no longer believes
>> it was so wronged or that the accused is the party that should
>> be prosecuted that should have some bearing.
>You may disagree, but that's how the U.S. criminal system works. Victims do
>not have the right to release the accused from criminal prosecution.
>Congress writes the laws, the police arrest the suspects, the prosecutors
>present the case, the courts hear the case, the juries decide the cases.
>The victims can watch the process as witnesses in the courtroom, if they
>wish, but they have no rights to absolve the accused or grant reduced or
>Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT