[Lumiere]

Wow! Just wow !

[Timoteo]

Actually, he ISN'T stretching it. People HAVE been put to death who didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of. DAs and prosecutors are all about their conviction percentages and conviction records. There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

As a matter of procedure, there should be mandatory DNA tests upon the birth of any child (or men should be able to confidentially request one without the knowledge of the mother) so paternity can be confirmed. It seems once bureacracy is in motion (support payments have begun, etc.), the system is reluctant to correct a mistake. That means there must be confirmation beforehand.

[Tuthmosis]

Mandatory DNA testing for all children at birth.

It's the only solution to this type of more-common-than-people-realize problem.

[worldwidetraveler]

I don't think the courts care if the guy is the real father or not. It seems they think this guy stood up to the plate and did the right thing when he thought it was his kid that he should continue doing the right thing even after finding out it wasn't his kid. The kid is more important and the guy is screwed regardless.

Pretty messed up shit there.

[Timoteo]

(01-04-2012 01:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

I don't think the courts care if the guy is the real father or not. It seems they think this guy stood up to the plate and did the right thing when he thought it was his kid that he should continue doing the right thing even after finding out it wasn't his kid. The kid is more important and the guy is screwed regardless.

Pretty messed up shit there.

The underlying reason for this IS the welfare of the child, but it also removes responsibility from the mother. If it is discovered that a man is NOT the biological father, the mother should have to identify the man that IS. Especially in an instance where the other man is incarcerated and can't pay, why would the court not then look to the actual biological father? If the woman says she doesn't know who/where he is, then SHE should bear sole responsibility for the support of her offspring. I'll bet if the court did that, she'd suddenly remember who the actual dad is.

[Excelsior]

(01-04-2012 01:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

I don't think the courts care if the guy is the real father or not.

Precisely. Keep in mind that a lot of this is about expedience and convenience for the government. For them, legally forcing a cuckold to support a child that is not his and its cheating mother is much cheaper and more straightforward than hunting down the actual father and/or allowing the cuckold to cease paying support. The government knows that a mother is more likely to see a timely, consistent payment in the former scenario than the latter, and they'd rather not have to foot the bill themselves in the form of welfare and other entitlements to the single mother.

They make money when guys like this get screwed. It is always about the dollar.

[worldwidetraveler]

(01-04-2012 02:09 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

The underlying reason for this IS the welfare of the child, but it also removes responsibility from the mother. If it is discovered that a man is NOT the biological father, the mother should have to identify the man that IS. Especially in an instance where the other man is incarcerated and can't pay, why would the court not then look to the actual biological father? If the woman says she doesn't know who/where he is, then SHE should bare sole responsibility for the support of her offspring. I'll bet if the court did that, she'd suddenly remember who the actual dad is.

Another reason getting snipped is sounding like a good idea. I bet the guy will be on the hook until the kid is 18.

[Menace]

It's all because of this: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

This is the incentive for states to collect money from someone (anyone) and why they don't care.

[Basil Ransom]

(01-04-2012 01:13 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Actually, he ISN'T stretching it. People HAVE been put to death who didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of. DAs and prosecutors are all about their conviction percentages and conviction records. There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

If the DA/prosecutor gets a conviction, and then the case gets appealed and then overturned, does that count as a win or a loss in the DA's/prosecutor's record?

(01-04-2012 01:13 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

Do you have a link for this?

[Excelsior]

(01-04-2012 02:43 PM)Menace Wrote:  

It's all because of this: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

This is the incentive for states to collect money from someone (anyone) and why they don't care.

As I said, just follow the dollars and you'll always find the answer.

[Menace]

(01-04-2012 03:50 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 02:43 PM)Menace Wrote:  

It's all because of this: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

This is the incentive for states to collect money from someone (anyone) and why they don't care.

As I said, just follow the dollars and you'll always find the answer.

I hope you take Family Law in school. Just see how long they spend on this section, if any. Hint: 15 minutes and no talk of incentives.

[Timoteo]

(01-04-2012 02:49 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 01:13 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Actually, he ISN'T stretching it. People HAVE been put to death who didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of. DAs and prosecutors are all about their conviction percentages and conviction records. There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

If the DA/prosecutor gets a conviction, and then the case gets appealed and then overturned, does that count as a win or a loss in the DA's/prosecutor's record?

(01-04-2012 01:13 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

Do you have a link for this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/alask...e-1.391916

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...ith/eight/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boxe...07442.html

These kind of stories are pretty common. I could search for any number of similar stories. It isn't just some death row inmates, but others incarcerated for long sentences that have professed innocence from the beginning, and there is a way of conclusively determining innocence, where prosecutors refuse to test evidence. Prosecutors are also known to withhold evidence from a trial that would clear the defendant, but they want that conviction. There are stories of court appointed attorneys falling asleep during capital trials, yet that conviction stands and that defendant is refused a new trial.

Even if a case is appealed and overturned, it can take years for that case to wind its way through the courts again. And that still depends on another judge reviewing the case and agreeing overturning it (not guaranteed). Some states have moved to greatly shorten the appeals process, so if convicted, it could be GAME OVER and you won't have much recourse. No prosecutor wants one of his cases overturned, and there is often a reluctance to test DNA after the fact because that means an admission of a wrongful conviction at minimum, or it may expose something much worse - the intentional withholding/burying of evidence.

[vinman]

(01-04-2012 01:13 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Actually, he ISN'T stretching it. People HAVE been put to death who didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of. DAs and prosecutors are all about their conviction percentages and conviction records. There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

As a matter of procedure, there should be mandatory DNA tests upon the birth of any child (or men should be able to confidentially request one without the knowledge of the mother) so paternity can be confirmed. It seems once bureacracy is in motion (support payments have begun, etc.), the system is reluctant to correct a mistake. That means there must be confirmation beforehand.

Mandatory DNA testing was proposed, and feminist went BATSHIT CRAZY!

[vinman]

(01-04-2012 01:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

I don't think the courts care if the guy is the real father or not. It seems they think this guy stood up to the plate and did the right thing when he thought it was his kid that he should continue doing the right thing even after finding out it wasn't his kid. The kid is more important and the guy is screwed regardless.

Pretty messed up shit there.

The court system is horrible. When I was in the military in Georgia a soldier went to court with two other guys that had sex with a hood rat around the same time. She claimed the kid was his. He stated that the kid could be from a bunch of different guys. The judge told him he was responsible because he admitted to carnal knowledge. He protested by saying it was unfair to pay for a child that wasn't his. The judge said, "so what? Feed him long enough, and he'll look like you". I'm not making this shit up.

[Timoteo]

(01-04-2012 06:58 PM)vinman Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 01:13 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Actually, he ISN'T stretching it. People HAVE been put to death who didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of. DAs and prosecutors are all about their conviction percentages and conviction records. There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

As a matter of procedure, there should be mandatory DNA tests upon the birth of any child (or men should be able to confidentially request one without the knowledge of the mother) so paternity can be confirmed. It seems once bureacracy is in motion (support payments have begun, etc.), the system is reluctant to correct a mistake. That means there must be confirmation beforehand.

Mandatory DNA testing was proposed, and feminist went BATSHIT CRAZY!

SHOCKING!!!! HA HA! Those same bitches stomped around protesting no-fault divorce also. Anything that forces them to assume responsibility, and puts the cash cow at risk must be protested.

[blurb]

(01-04-2012 07:03 PM)vinman Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 01:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

I don't think the courts care if the guy is the real father or not. It seems they think this guy stood up to the plate and did the right thing when he thought it was his kid that he should continue doing the right thing even after finding out it wasn't his kid. The kid is more important and the guy is screwed regardless.

Pretty messed up shit there.

The court system is horrible. When I was in the military in Georgia a soldier went to court with two other guys that had sex with a hood rat around the same time. She claimed the kid was his. He stated that the kid could be from a bunch of different guys. The judge told him he was responsible because he admitted to carnal knowledge. He protested by saying it was unfair to pay for a child that wasn't his. The judge said, "so what? Feed him long enough, and he'll look like you". I'm not making this shit up.

I believe you. I live in the Deep South, and judges can be some of the worst beta chumpy white-knights you can imagine. They always like to enforce their views of how men ought to "properly" behave. I once heard about a ruling where the judge said that he'll show the parents how to "grow up." Judges can also be some of the largest egoists yet. I know of a judge who happily sends all people to jail, even for one day, just because he believes that a day in jail is "good" for everybody. The power goes to their heads.

For all the attention placed on the Supreme Court, it's actually your local magistrate judges that most people will face, but virtually know nothing about.

Remember, most judges are old white men, betas who pedastalize women. I fear that this may be one of the driving reasons for unfair divorce settlements.

Judges, along with car salesmen, are some of the many people I dislike. For all the hate that lawyers get, I'm surprised that judges get almost no hate or at least a negative view in the eyes of the general population.

[blurb]

(01-04-2012 07:04 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 06:58 PM)vinman Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 01:13 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Actually, he ISN'T stretching it. People HAVE been put to death who didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of. DAs and prosecutors are all about their conviction percentages and conviction records. There are men on death row right now, where there is DNA that can be tested (when they were convicted the technology to test wasn't available), but yet they still refuse to test and will allow men to be executed when there is CLEAR doubt as to their guilt.

As a matter of procedure, there should be mandatory DNA tests upon the birth of any child (or men should be able to confidentially request one without the knowledge of the mother) so paternity can be confirmed. It seems once bureacracy is in motion (support payments have begun, etc.), the system is reluctant to correct a mistake. That means there must be confirmation beforehand.

Mandatory DNA testing was proposed, and feminist went BATSHIT CRAZY!

SHOCKING!!!! HA HA! Those same bitches stomped around protesting no-fault divorce also. Anything that forces them to assume responsibility, and puts the cash cow at risk must be protested.

When men protest, they are shamed and told to stop "complaining."

When women protest, all the world supports them, regardless of whether they're right or wrong.