How can they say you were doing something they never witnessed?

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    17 days ago

    [off topic]

    Back during the 1976 Democratic Convention at Madison Square Garde, the NYPD said it would arrest any unescorted woman near the place. Feminists like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan organized middle class white ladies to show up and demand they be arrested for being ‘unescorted.’

      • deadcatbounce@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        They’re no longer John’s, they’re porn stars. No shame necessary in this century, where OF exhibits consider themselves entrepreneurs.

        This century is a fail if that’s really all we’ve collectively created: a machine to destroy young people; a place to watch the light in their eyes fade.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    You mean like text messages? If you have texts and then video cameras of two people going into a hotel room, that’s mighty fine evidence. What the hell else were they gonna do? Yoga?

    You don’t need eyewitnesses to get convictions. That is not the legal standard.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        The jury decides what has been proven, not you. It really is that simple. People get convicted all the time of crimes where nobody saw them do it. Because of other evidence and common sense.

        And look, think about the standard that you’re trying to push. If we have text messages before and after, plus video of them going in and coming out of the hotel room. Is that good enough for you? They could always say that they thought about sex but settled for monopoly and were only joking around later… Maybe you would believe that story, but maybe the average juror would laugh.

        • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 days ago

          The prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, leaving no doubt in their minds about the defendant’s guilt.

          • orcrist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 days ago

            No. The expression you looking for is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. What you wrote is proof beyond any doubt, which is not the legal standard.

            Also, please take a look at Florida Chapter 796, or if you were concerned about another location, look at the state or local laws for that location. You will probably see that actually engaging in the act of sex is one of several ways that you could violate prostitution laws.