Inquisition and the allegations made by MetalSucks

[AlSymerz]

Was it America or UK where they pulled down all those old statues because of things the people did that are now deemed wrong? We had some people throw red paint at statues of Captain Cook on Australia day, 2 weeks ago, as a protest to Cook raiding the land of the Aboriginal people.

But I'm not sure of any statues of metal star that could be ripped down. Jeff Hanneman did get a roundabout named after him, and Tom Araya has a statue in a zoo somewhere. But I'm not sure people are ready to cancel Slayer, just bitch about how they haven't released anything good since the 80's

[navybsn]

1 hour ago, zackflag said:

Yeah and in Dagon's case, he grew up changed for the worse, and downloaded an exorbitant amount of child porn. That's not much of a redemption arc. Perhaps he's changed for the better since then, and If you and wanna give him the benefit of the doubt, that's fine I guess, but it's perfectly within reason for others to not do so.

Not arguing that at all. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt no matter what they've done in the past. There's rarely much that's completely unredeemable and no one who hasn't made mistakes in their lives. Dude had a problem with a significantly deviant perversion. That could indicate a number of mental health disorders ranging from obsessive compulsive disorder, narcissism, and bipolar to conditions along the Autism spectrum. With adequate treatment and commitment, those people can lead normal socially acceptable lives. Without treatment, they can do terrible things. The step between looking at pictures and actively engaging in more depraved activity isn't a big one (something I would say is irredeemable) and what I would equate to people singing or writing about the glorification of Satan/satanic imagery and those that take it further and engage in ritual activities that hurt others. Maybe not the best analogy, but you get the idea. Regardless, I think you can see the distinction I'm making.

In his case, we've never heard any statement of contrition or explanation which makes me curious as to what his side is and what has happened in the intervening 11-12 years. Has he sought treatment and worked to make amends? We've no idea. My experience with the legal system is that things rarely go down the way they are related in a plea deal. Sometimes worse, sometimes not. Seeing how the whole thing actually took place over a decade ago (came to everyone's attention later), we're not likely to hear that in the future. It's likely he's done nothing at all to atone, but I'm not in a position to judge that. I'm not saying that in his case I'm turning a blind eye to what he did. I don't pay for any of his music anymore (I was sent a promotional copy of the last record), but I can still enjoy the music for what it is. I don't listen to Inquisition because of Dragon or the other dude, I do because the music is good. Back to the timeless debate of separating the art from the artist. I certainly understand where people on the side of the argument are coming from and support you having that take 100%. Just like everything in the human condition, nothing is ever simple and the myriad of factors that go into why people make the decisions they do. I try to approach things with an open mind for things I can understand and a bit of sympathy for those (like mental illness) that I can't.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, KillaKukumba said:

Was it America or UK where they pulled down all those old statues because of things the people did that are now deemed wrong? We had some people throw red paint at statues of Captain Cook on Australia day, 2 weeks ago, as a protest to Cook raiding the land of the Aboriginal people.

But I'm not sure of any statues of metal star that could be ripped down. Jeff Hanneman did get a roundabout named after him, and Tom Araya has a statue in a zoo somewhere. But I'm not sure people are ready to cancel Slayer, just bitch about how they haven't released anything good since the 80's

 

Hey listen, we gave Jimbo every chance to redeem himself but the Sandwich Island (Hawaiian) natives got to him on his third visit after he had kidnapped their chief Kalaniʻōpuʻu and held him for ransom, thus ending his life at just 50 years old before he had a chance to reflect on his misdeeds and get his shit together. 

 

Gotta be honest, I'd pay good money to get my picture taken standing in the middle of Jeff Hanneman's roundabout.

[FatherAlabaster]

2 hours ago, markm said:

That's a good point-not giving notoriety or $ to someone that can benefit who's a legit dirt bag. It's one thing to say, I'm not going to deny myself the pleasure of enjoying Picasso's art because he was reportedly a misogynist who abused women repeatedly or demand we tear down The Jefferson Memorial  because the man was had a relationship with a woman he kept as a slave-they're dead! 

I was listening to historians on a podcast that touched on Jefferson a while back and one thing that stuck with me was the guest talking about his approach to people like that - he said he looks for heroics, not heros. So, like, keep the context in mind, appreciate the positive things they added to our development without needing to valorize them and whitewash (or celebrate) the bad parts.

1 hour ago, KillaKukumba said:

Was it America or UK where they pulled down all those old statues because of things the people did that are now deemed wrong?

 

That was here. It was about slaveholders and the Civil War. Worth pointing out that the immorality of keeping slaves was understood at the time, and not just by abolitionists... the slaveholders understood how fucked up it was and made the economic calculation that it was better than not having all that free labor. There are letters and other writings from the time to support that, not just talking out of my ass here. There's also the fact that a lot of those statues went up during other, later periods of racial tension as a way of asserting white superiority. It's still an issue. Big fight about history in schools over here now too. I'm not taking a dig at you, I don't expect you to know about or follow all of the USA-specific stuff, but be aware that it can get inflammatory pretty quickly. 

[SurgicalBrute]

That was here in the U.S....and half the time they didn't even know what they were damaging or why. I mean, they tried to destroy a Civil War statue meant to commemorate soldiers who were literally forced to fight for the Confederacy against their will, because any concept beyond "Confederacy bad...Mongo must smash" was too deep for them.

Honestly, I generally find most any discussion about "Nazis in metal" to be one of the more (re)dacted conversations to continually pop up these days. Look, buy a bands shit, don't buy a bands shit...I ain't your priest and I'm not here for your confession, but for me, on the grand list of shit I'm actually worried about in life, the idea that some black metal McNoodle-nuts, who wants to dress like a member of the Waffen-SS and jerk off to Ilsa the She-wolf porn, may end up getting enough money to buy 1/2 a kit-kat bar because I happened to like his music, probably falls somewhere around page 200.

Dagon messing with kids though, even via 3rd party pics, is absolutely vile. I don't think there's any real debate to be had about whether that has absolute, demonstrable consequences. Children's lives are completely destroyed to create those kinds of images, and I won't pretend that hasn't impacted my interest in Inquisition as a band...

...and finally, just let me add, that Metalsucks is the journalistic equivalent of the toe fungus you'd find on a week old corpse. If the earth were to open up and swallow those two chucklefucks whole, the collective IQ of the planet would rise by 15%

 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

12 minutes ago, navybsn said:

Not arguing that at all. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt no matter what they've done in the past. There's rarely much that's completely unredeemable and no one who hasn't made mistakes in their lives. Dude had a problem with a significantly deviant perversion. That could indicate a number of mental health disorders ranging from obsessive compulsive disorder, narcissism, and bipolar to conditions along the Autism spectrum. With adequate treatment and commitment, those people can lead normal socially acceptable lives. Without treatment, they can do terrible things. The step between looking at pictures and actively engaging in more depraved activity isn't a big one (something I would say is irredeemable) and what I would equate to people singing or writing about the glorification of Satan/satanic imagery and those that take it further and engage in ritual activities that hurt others. Maybe not the best analogy, but you get the idea. Regardless, I think you can see the distinction I'm making.

In his case, we've never heard any statement of contrition or explanation which makes me curious as to what his side is and what has happened in the intervening 11-12 years. Has he sought treatment and worked to make amends? We've no idea. My experience with the legal system is that things rarely go down the way they are related in a plea deal. Sometimes worse, sometimes not. Seeing how the whole thing actually took place over a decade ago (came to everyone's attention later), we're not likely to hear that in the future. It's likely he's done nothing at all to atone, but I'm not in a position to judge that. I'm not saying that in his case I'm turning a blind eye to what he did. I don't pay for any of his music anymore (I was sent a promotional copy of the last record), but I can still enjoy the music for what it is. I don't listen to Inquisition because of Dragon or the other dude, I do because the music is good. Back to the timeless debate of separating the art from the artist. I certainly understand where people on the side of the argument are coming from and support you having that take 100%. Just like everything in the human condition, nothing is ever simple and the myriad of factors that go into why people make the decisions they do. I try to approach things with an open mind for things I can understand and a bit of sympathy for those (like mental illness) that I can't.

Navy I believe you have summed this up better than I could have.

I would just like to add that people love to judge other people and most of us are more than happy to do it with 2nd and 3rd and 4th hand information that we happened to read somewhere or maybe we just heard it from someone. I can't know 100% of the facts of the case, I've just heard the law enforcement side as researched and retold by the media, and then Jason "Dagon" Weirbach's side which was just a brief statement. I'd be willing to bet money that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, where it can usually be found. It's been my experience that very rarely is anything ever as absolutely black & white as it's typically presented to us.

The initial incident and Jason's ensuing legal entanglements took place 15 years ago in 2007 and the case was concluded 2 years later in 2009. I read an interview 4 years ago where he said he did have to attend therapy sessions for a porn addiction as a part of the plea deal. He did release a public statement, not of contrition but of denial. He claimed he was innocent of all charges and he insists that he is not a sex offender. Said that everything being reported were just the one-sided charges and accusations from the court documents, no mention was made of what was actually proven or admitted to. Said he pled to the deal his lawyer made for him because he was told it would be the easiest and quickest way to put an end to the 2 year legal ordeal. His public statement from March 2018 can be viewed at several places on the internet if anyone might care to Google it. 

Does any of this prove his innocence? Hardly. Because what would you expect anyone in his position to say? It's certainly possible he could be the sickest fucking degenerate ever to pick up a guitar. It's also possible that this could have been spun, and/or blown out of proportion. I think I at least have some doubts, but you may disagree. Am I defending him? No I'm not. I have no evidence of his innocence, just conflicting claims from opposing sides. I'm just saying that there's really no way for me to know 100% for sure exactly what happened 15 years ago.

For my part I have no intention of getting rid of my Inquisition albums and I will still continue to listen to the band's music because this happens to be my favorite band. But I would feel the same way about this even if this was someone from a band I didn't care for at all. Bottom line everyone needs to make up their own minds about these things though, and I totally understand and have no issue with the fact that most people still want to condemn the man.

[AlSymerz]

2 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

Navy I believe you have summed this up better than I could have.

I would just like to add that people love to judge other people and most of us are more than happy to do it with 2nd and 3rd and 4th hand information that we happened to read somewhere or maybe we just heard it from someone. I can't know 100% of the facts of the case, I've just heard the law enforcement side as researched and retold by the media, and then Jason "Dagon" Weirbach's side which was just a brief statement. I'd be willing to bet money that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, where it can usually be found. It's been my experience that very rarely is anything ever as absolutely black & white as it's typically presented to us.

 

That's true, and it seems like, in the country at least, that the worse the reported act the more likely some are to believe it. I don't know the original case above, but there has been quiet a few cases in this country were innocent until proven guilty was thrown out and replaced with trial by media, social media, or public opinion.

[Fraser]

From a direct music aspect of this OP topic (inquisition) I have no input as I don't listen to it. BUT….

I have a major fucking issue with mainstream depravity that is somehow accepted because of the fame or notoriety of the perpetrator. Basically saying yeh that person is shocking enough to cause outrage but too famous to be erased from public praise and positive notoriety. Such as Micheal Jackson, Charlie chaplin etc
 

Murder, although Im not condoning it usually carries a reason, sometimes mitigating. I can understand the action of certain cases but anything to do with children, rape or blatant depravity have no mitigating circumstances, and in my opinion should be dealt with in the harshest form.
 

In the field of music, an action on one band member should not taint a band name but it does. I wont stop listening to a band because of one members actions Aslong as the offending member is dealt with appropriately  

[MacabreEternal]

7 hours ago, KillaKukumba said:

Was it America or UK where they pulled down all those old statues because of things the people did that are now deemed wrong? We had some people throw red paint at statues of Captain Cook on Australia day, 2 weeks ago, as a protest to Cook raiding the land of the Aboriginal people.

 

A statue of Edward Colston - historic slave trading figure - was pulled down by protestors during an anti-racism protest in June 2020 in Bristol, UK.  Guy shipped an estimated 80,000 slaves from Africa to the Americas in the 17th century.  In his spare time he supported hospitals, schools and house for the poor and was in some regards also deemed to be a decent sort as well.  His statue got pulled from the harbour the protestors dumped it in and placed in a museum.  A hall that was named after him (the inventively titled Colston Hall) got renamed Bristol Beacon.  I think some people got arrested for the statue incident but were acquitted.

Off the back of the Black Lives Matter protests, the UK changed/moved 69 tributes to slave traders, colonialists and racists (not that any of them had plaques that said "John Smith - Glorious Racist" I suspect so the word 'tribute' is a strong one).  There was talk of the government here changing the laws around damaging or defacing statues to protect them from - I quote - "baying mobs", which is a typical misguided Conservative Party statement.

Residents in Plymouth and Shrewsbury in the UK petitioned local government to keep Sir Francis Drake and Clive of India's statues and they remain in place.

[AProperCat]

I'd say since the guy is alive as others have said, that you don't want to give that guy money until the he's either determined innocent or he dies and it's his estate getting the money, (which I have been to jail for aggravated battery) I can tell you from experience those guys unless the place protects them don't last long (or end up someone's bitch.)

[GoatmasterGeneral]

2 hours ago, AProperCat said:

I'd say since the guy is alive as others have said, that you don't want to give that guy money until the he's either determined innocent or he dies and it's his estate getting the money, (which I have been to jail for aggravated battery) I can tell you from experience those guys unless the place protects them don't last long (or end up someone's bitch.)

What's your definition of "determined innocent?"

[AlSymerz]

Determined innocent by an internet of his peers.

[AProperCat]

On 10/5/2023 at 5:49 PM, GoatmasterGeneral said:

What's your definition of "determined innocent?"

If it turns out this is just some wild misunderstanding. Which I suspect he is guilty. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

49 minutes ago, AProperCat said:

If it turns out this is just some wild misunderstanding. Which I suspect he is guilty. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

People who have been accused of a crime don't get "determined innocent." In our American criminal justice system the accused will be judged and then found to be either guilty or not guilty. Or the case could be dismissed or pled out to a lesser charge, in which cases no final determination of guilt is ever made, which is what happened here. The events of this specific case in question all took place over 15 years ago, so at this point I doubt any new evidence, either damning or exculpatory will ever be brought to light.

People of course love to judge their fellow man, and that's their right. We are free to "suspect" or believe whatever we like. But no public figure has ever been "determined" to be innocent or guilty by uninformed randos arguing on the internet. We're all just assholes with opinions.

[FatherAlabaster]

2 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

People who have been accused of a crime don't get "determined innocent." In our American criminal justice system the accused will be judged and then found to be either guilty or not guilty.

That's not entirely accurate. There can be a factual determination of innocence in the justice system, especially as a component of exoneration.

[Dead1]

As I am discovering from my victims of crime counsellor wife and her lawyer-prosecutor friend, the criminal justice is a lot more convoluted than "guilty v non-guilty" or "charge v non-charge" or "go to a hearing v don't go to a hearing" let alone taking into account judge and magistrate personal preferences. 

 

Suffice to say most criminals are never even charged due to lack of evidence and sometimes even when there is evidence, the prosecutors don't bother for a number of reasons from laziness to its too hard to the victim is unreliable,* cops or prosecutor doesn't like the victim to cops just fucked up (eg not interviewing witnesses for 6 months, losing paper work) to one case where prosecutor was in a sexual relationship with a known criminal.

*Because lawyers are allowed to completely defame a witness in a court room whilst alleged perpetrator's priors cannot be mentioned.  

 

Also in many cases victims don't want to go to trial or have charges laid because it's too stressful, they fear for their lives or lives of children and pets, they fear the impact on their reputation the situation is complex (eg financial or children) or they don't believe the criminal justice system will work (because most of the time it doesn't - anywhere up to 24 months for a hearing and then the perp gets 2 months gaol time which they might have already served and are thus released.

 

Also from personal experience, modern law and systems of accountability are so convoluted that responsibility is too difficult to determine (eg my employer covering up for pedophile) or government/organisation wants to avoid embarrassment (hence people that covered up pedophile or two executives who committed fraud were let go quietly).

 

Suffice to say 99/100 the bad guy probably did it but the system doesn't work so they don't even get charged let alone found guilty.

 

So I think the guy from Inquisition probably did it but whether anything comes of it is another story.

 

 

[Nasty_Cabbage]

2 hours ago, Dead1 said:

Suffice to say 99/100 the bad guy probably did it but the system doesn't work so they don't even get charged let alone found guilty.

 

 

To state that in 99/100 cases the one facing a potential charge is guilty is absolutely flabbergasting to me. I don't want to come off here as though I'm in a state of high dudgeon, so I guess the real question would be that in some hypothetical situation where you had your hand on the dial so to speak, what ratio of innocents convicted to guilty and freed would you be comfortable with?

As far as the Inquisition guy, I'm not really familiar with the evidence, but I do know he was convicted and it seems pretty cut and dry that he was at least knowingly in possession of some repulsive pornographic material and very likely had participated in it's further dissemination. His true feelings are unknowable. Of course, should he attempt to interact with the media again he's going to represent himself as being contrite and regretful. Whether he is or is not though is something we couldn't possibly hope to ascertain, especially after a stint of incarceration (which if I recall, he did end of serving at least partially) in a punitive anti-reformative system. Whatever happens is part of the legal governing body now, and honestly doesn't really affect my view of their music, accept that, if I were a member of that band who was unaware of Dagon's activities I would probably just change the name of the band, and be absolutely livid that I was no longer able to play under the band name I had invested years into to building a strong reputation behind, due to such a seemingly needless and idiotic action by my bandmate.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

2 hours ago, FatherAlabaster said:

That's not entirely accurate. There can be a factual determination of innocence in the justice system, especially as a component of exoneration.

Do you mean like when they have to let someone go years after being convicted because they found out the DNA didn't match, so they're officially "exonerated" then? OK fair enough.

But in normal every day trials you're either found guilty or not guilty, there's no option for innocent. So in other words being found not guilty is not the same thing as being declared innocent. Just means they didn't have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant can be found 'not guilty' and they still might or might not have done what they were accused of. Our whole legal system is based on what they can prove. 

 

2 hours ago, Dead1 said:

So I think the guy from Inquisition probably did it but whether anything comes of it is another story.

This incident took place back in 2007 and his case was adjudicated in 2009, so it's been over for 14 years now. They pled it down to a misdemeanor of viewing pornography in public (on a laptop) and he had to attend court ordered counseling sessions for porn addiction which he did. He was not required to register as a sex offender.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

43 minutes ago, Nasty_Cabbage said:

To state that in 99/100 cases the one facing a potential charge is guilty is absolutely flabbergasting to me. I don't want to come off here as though I'm in a state of high dudgeon, so I guess the real question would be that in some hypothetical situation where you had your hand on the dial so to speak, what ratio of innocents convicted to guilty and freed would you be comfortable with?

As far as the Inquisition guy, I'm not really familiar with the evidence, but I do know he was convicted and it seems pretty cut and dry that he was at least knowingly in possession of some repulsive pornographic material and very likely had participated in it's further dissemination. His true feelings are unknowable. Of course, should he attempt to interact with the media again he's going to represent himself as being contrite and regretful. Whether he is or is not though is something we couldn't possibly hope to ascertain, especially after a stint of incarceration (which if I recall, he did end of serving at least partially) in a punitive anti-reformative system. Whatever happens is part of the legal governing body now, and honestly doesn't really affect my view of their music, accept that, if I were a member of that band who was unaware of Dagon's activities I would probably just change the name of the band, and be absolutely livid that I was no longer able to play under the band name I had invested years into to building a strong reputation behind, due to such a seemingly needless and idiotic action by my bandmate.

Dagon has denied the more serious charges, said he pled to the misdemeanor as the easiest and quickest way to end the lengthy legal process. He was not sentenced to any prison time, just the counseling for porn addiction. You can read his public statement here if you choose:

https://www.brooklynvegan.com/inquisition-respond-report-of-child-porn-charges-i-am-not-a-sex-offender/

The band (which coincidentally happens to be far and away my all time favorite metal band) is just him and a drummer. They've been together many years, I don't see the two of them breaking up now. They probably watch porn together on the tour bus.

As far as the ratio of innocents convicted to guilty and freed is concerned, I would absolutely and unequivocally agree with Benjamin Franklin's famous quote: "It is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer." I've had this discussion with Deadly-do-right in the past. He definitely worries more about making sure all the guilty are punished and no one gets away with anything, even if that means a few innocents get caught up in the net and have their lives destroyed by mistake. I understand that prosecutors would tend to think everyone is guilty, because when you're a hammer everything looks to you like a nail.

Personally I believe there are a lot more innocent people wrongfully convicted and serving time for shit they didn't do than most people realize. In our fucked up legal system conviction rates matter more to prosecutors than making sure justice is done. I would guess possibly as many as 15 - 20% of our 1.2 million incarcerated in the US have been wrongfully imprisoned and are innocent of the crimes they've been convicted for. But obviously it's the kind of thing that's impossible to prove or put a verifiable number on.

[Dead1]

2 hours ago, Nasty_Cabbage said:

To state that in 99/100 cases the one facing a potential charge is guilty is absolutely flabbergasting to me. I don't want to come off here as though I'm in a state of high dudgeon, so I guess the real question would be that in some hypothetical situation where you had your hand on the dial so to speak, what ratio of innocents convicted to guilty and freed would you be comfortable with?

 

Cops don't lay charges unless they're pretty certain the accused did it.

Prosecutors don't take it to hearing unless they're pretty confident they have a good chance of winning the case.

Very often it's down to proving intent and horse trading on  types of guilty charges to reduce time served.

And as mentioned, how the perp and victims appear physically and the way they behave and their standing in community is often more crucial to sentencing than not (eg a guy who is an upstanding member of the community and presents well might get a good behaviour bond for something a more rough looking person might get prison time).

 

 

Most crimes are never reported or even go through court system. 

I was personally friends with several drug dealers who did brisk business yet never were caught by police.

I've witnessed friends bash their girlfriends on multiple occasions with no charges ever laid.

I knew a drug dealer who was kneecapped by a fellow drug dealer but no charges ever laid.  Both parties attested to it being a hunting accident.

I've known people who were burgled and never reported to police.

I've known and still know people who regularly shop lift.

I myself was caught drink driving and wasn't charged.  Neither were my best mate or my brother while my dad's alcoholic  friend was given several warnings before finally being charged with it.

I have known people who owned illegal firearms and things like sound suppressors.

I work for an organisation that has swept under the carpet everything from corruption and fraud to paedophilia over the 17 years I've been working for it (not to mention over a dozen negligent deaths).  And no charges laid despite media uproar at the time.  Quiet retirements for all involved.

As a youth I was involved in vandalism, underage drinking, drinking in public, numerous cases of drink driving and drug use.  Other than some driving charges for escaping from the scene of an accident, I was only ever caught 3 times and only ever charged once (driving away from a scene of crime).

 

Crime is actually endemic and rampant.  System never catches even 1% of it.

 

So if I was charged with something by the police, it is most likely because I did actually do whatever it is.  Of course if I can weasel out or get out on a technicality then yes I would do that.

 

Basically Australia's criminal justice system is permissive and tolerant. Australia's population is generally tolerant of crime.  Indeed when my mates and I would literally look away while my flatmate choked his girlfriend, then that tells you everything.

 

1 hour ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

 

Personally I believe there are a lot more innocent people wrongfully convicted and serving time for shit they didn't do than most people realize. In our fucked up legal system conviction rates matter more to prosecutors than making sure justice is done. I would guess possibly as many as 15 - 20% of our 1.2 million incarcerated in the US have been wrongfully imprisoned and are innocent of the crimes they've been convicted for. But obviously it's the kind of thing that's impossible to prove or put a verifiable number on.

Not where I am from.

As mentioned in my post above, I've witnessed lots of crimes (mainly drug dealing, family violence, also some white collar stuff which I as a responsible adult reported but nothing done) and committed some myself in my youth (drink driving being most serious) but cops don't know about this.

 

And my wife has worked in the criminal justice system for near 2 decades in various capacities.   Basically if Tasmanian Police charge you, you've probably done it.  If it goes to a hearing/trial, you've probably definitely done it (even if you are found not guilty).

 

Because most things don't even have criminal charges laid, let alone go to trial or hearing.  And that's just the stuff the cops/system knows about!

 

Next you will be telling me democracy actually works and politicians are actually in control and know what they're doing!  😵😵

 

 

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, Dead1 said:

Cops don't lay charges unless they're pretty certain the accused did it.

Prosecutors don't take it to hearing unless they're pretty confident they have a good chance of winning the case.

Very often it's down to proving intent and horse trading on  types of guilty charges to reduce time served.

And as mentioned, how the perp and victims appear physically and the way they behave and their standing in community is often more crucial to sentencing than not (eg a guy who is an upstanding member of the community and presents well might get a good behaviour bond for something a more rough looking person might get prison time).

 

 

Most crimes are never reported or even go through court system. 

I was personally friends with several drug dealers who did brisk business yet never were caught by police.

I've witnessed friends bash their girlfriends on multiple occasions with no charges ever laid.

I knew a drug dealer who was kneecapped by a fellow drug dealer but no charges ever laid.  Both parties attested to it being a hunting accident.

I've known people who were burgled and never reported to police.

I've known and still know people who regularly shop lift.

I myself was caught drink driving and wasn't charged.  Neither were my best mate or my brother while my dad's alcoholic  friend was given several warnings before finally being charged with it.

I have known people who owned illegal firearms and things like sound suppressors.

I work for an organisation that has swept under the carpet everything from corruption and fraud to paedophilia over the 17 years I've been working for it (not to mention over a dozen negligent deaths).  And no charges laid despite media uproar at the time.  Quiet retirements for all involved.

As a youth I was involved in vandalism, underage drinking, drinking in public, numerous cases of drink driving and drug use.  Other than some driving charges for escaping from the scene of an accident, I was only ever caught 3 times and only ever charged once (driving away from a scene of crime).

 

Crime is actually endemic and rampant.  System never catches even 1% of it.

 

So if I was charged with something by the police, it is most likely because I did actually do whatever it is.  Of course if I can weasel out or get out on a technicality then yes I would do that.

 

Basically Australia's criminal justice system is permissive and tolerant. Australia's population is generally tolerant of crime.  Indeed when my mates and I would literally look away while my flatmate choked his girlfriend, then that tells you everything.

 

Not where I am from.

As mentioned in my post above, I've witnessed lots of crimes (mainly drug dealing, family violence, also some white collar stuff which I as a responsible adult reported but nothing done) and committed some myself in my youth (drink driving being most serious) but cops don't know about this.

 

And my wife has worked in the criminal justice system for near 2 decades in various capacities. Basically if Tasmanian Police charge you, you've probably done it. If it goes to a hearing/trial, you've probably definitely done it (even if you are found not guilty).

 

Because most things don't even have criminal charges laid, let alone go to trial or hearing. And that's just the stuff the cops/system knows about!

 

Next you will be telling me democracy actually works and politicians are actually in control and know what they're doing!  😵😵

 

 

Oh I agree my deadly friend, there's also heaps on top of tons on top of mountains of crime that goes undedected or unreported and therefore unpunished. We have 334 million people in America, almost exactly 13 times the Australian population of 25.7 million. But we only have just under 11 times as many law enforcement officers, 708k to 65k, so less per capita. I'm sure I couldn't even begin to imagine a fraction of the criminal shit that's going on out there even just right now in the middle of the night as I type. Such is the dichotomy of the American criminal justice system. Innocent men's lives are ruined while droves of guilty roam free. I understand there's no possible way to prevent much less catch all the criminal wrongdoing, but I feel like our nation's police are there as much for show as for any other reason. Highly visible out and about making their presense felt in the communities to give the public the illusion that they're protected. Much like those slow witted TSA numbskulls in all of our US airports.

Yet we have more prisoners incarcerated than any country on earth. Nearly 1 out of 4 prison inmates in the world is incarcerated in the USA, but we only have about 4% of the world's population. Compared to Australia who has just under 43,000 total prisoners, or 167 prisoners per 100k population, we have 2,068,800 prisoners or 629 per 100k. The only countries that even come close to us per capita are El Salvador, Rwanda, Cuba and Turkmenistan. Big bad Russia only has 470k prisoners or 326 per 100k. Even tyranical authoritarian China with their 1.3 billion people only has 1.7 million incarcerated, or 119 per 100k. (but they could be under-reporting for all we know)

So a disproportionate number of our police are overzealous assholes who like to fuck with people and lock them up, but they're just too lazy, incompetent and disinterested to do any investigative work or to make sure they get the right guys. It really seems like as long as they get someone they feel like they're doing their jobs. Another thing I've noticed is once you're "in the system" you'll stay on their radar forever. We have lots of low level petty criminal types who seem to be in and out of jail and/or prison, who get locked up and released over and over again on a regular basis, court dates out the ass, perpetually on probation almost as if it were a lifestyle choice. Because I guess it's easier for the cops and courts to just keep circulating the same lowlives and petty crims through the system over and over again than to go out and solve some fucking crimes.

On average 600k people go 'missing' and are presumed dead or are murdered in the USA on a yearly basis. In the late 90's that number was over 900k. Most missing persons are located within a couple of days (either dead or alive) but still 25% of these cases go unsoved. 50% of the nation's 25,000 reported homicides go unsolved each year (in some urban areas 75 or 80% can go unsolved) and aso 4,400 unidentified bodies are found each year. If it's not the romantic partner or a business partner or a situation with eye witnesses then they're pretty much at a loss to solve most of these cases. This is why we see so many innocent people railroaded into prison in this country. They just need to catch somebody to justify their salaries and positions. And in many instances if you happen to be poor, (or black or brown but mostly poor) then it might as well be you. And if not you then likely some other unsuspecting down on his luck son of a bitch who finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not to mention we have a growing private for-profit prison sub-system in this country that needs to stay at or near capacity to get that max government payout, because by contract they typically get paid a set amount per inmate. 7% of our state inmates and 18% of our federal inmates are incarcerated in private corporate run for-profit facilities. 

But no, don't worry, I will never tell you democracy works (not our current American democracy anyway) or that 99% of politicians don't have their heads stuffed well and firmly up their asses. They spend more time counting their donor money and squabbling with each other on social media than they do governing. Republicans in particular have done absoluely nothing since the midterms last November except make a lot of noise with the different factions within their own party constantly fighting with each other. They're currently trying to elect a new Speaker of the House after sacking the last one McCarthy they just elected 9 months ago. But they can't seem to come up with anyone they can all agree on, so of course they blame the Democrats. They've also been making a big show of late out of trying to impeach the President without any evidence of any wrongdoing. They don't even know exactly what they're trying to get him on. They were for a time claiming they had documents and whistleblowers which as of yet they've been unable to produce.  I've heard all kinds of rumors and buzz words like bribery and China and Ukraine and shell companies, but so far they're just 'looking into it' by holding sham hearings and desperately hoping if they can stall long enough they'll come up with something. But everyone knows it's just straight-up tit for tat retaliation for when the Dems impeached their Mango Messiah twice back during his shit-show of a single term. And now of course their messiah and former moron in chief is out on bail after having been indicted on 91 felony counts across 4 jurisdictions. The trials should be getting underway early next year. But all the noise coming from Washington is really just a smokescreen to cover the fact that they're not capable of doing their jobs. It'd almost be entertaining at times if it wasn't so pathetic. 

[AProperCat]

18 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

People who have been accused of a crime don't get "determined innocent." In our American criminal justice system the accused will be judged and then found to be either guilty or not guilty. Or the case could be dismissed or pled out to a lesser charge, in which cases no final determination of guilt is ever made, which is what happened here. The events of this specific case in question all took place over 15 years ago, so at this point I doubt any new evidence, either damning or exculpatory will ever be brought to light.

People of course love to judge their fellow man, and that's their right. We are free to "suspect" or believe whatever we like. But no public figure has ever been "determined" to be innocent or guilty by uninformed randos arguing on the internet. We're all just assholes with opinions.

Know that.

I am sorry can we hose the Jets here, I am really angry about the Middle East, and I wasn't trying piss anyone off.