If someone receives a felony conviction while in the Army ?
If this happened while he was in, then yes he will be dishonorably discharged, bet on it! Second, No they will not stay in, hence the reason they call it a discharge, once he does his time he will be released from prison and the military and never to be allowed back in ever. I am a US Army Recruiter and according to regulations we do not allow sex offenders to join the army nor do we allow them to stay. Ok....so he is in a civilian prison. Well, even if he had an honorable discharge from past experience prior to him commiting this crime it still wouldn't matter. He will never join the military ever again, the military (all services) run a thorough background check and sex offender is the first thing I!!! run. So I see everything this applicant was hiding me before he even makes it to MEPS or to the guidence couselors. I will never be despirate enough to allow a sex offender to join our ranks...!!! Sorry, all us recruiters are this pasionate about this subject.
How common is it for an individual to be wrongfully convicted in our criminal justice system?
How common is hard to quantify by giving you a number. It's infrequent but it happens--and we have executed innocent persons even in the last 10 years. Here are some of the reasons: eyewitness testimony is unreliable, believe it or not--people see different things and do not see everything accurately when excited. They also do not necessarily see what led to an event. Until recently, we did not know how reliable DNA evidence was and it was not used regularly. It makes a difference if you're poor. Poor people get public defenders, who are young, underpaid and inexperienced. If the Duke rape defendants had a public defender, they would be in prison now. In fact, that's a good example. The D.A. had DNA evidence that proved innocence and he hid it. Innocent people are convicted. I'm a prosecutor and I know it happens. But I've never hid evidence or done any of the things some prosecutors do just to get a conviction.
Is there research on whether having a personal history that includes sexually traumatic experience correlates with women being more likely to end up Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, etc?
That is a really interesting question. There is an old saying, I want to apply to Nelson Rockefeller, that “A Republican is just a Democrat who has been mugged”. In that reality, you become less concerned with perpetrators rights and more concerned with law and order and punishing criminals—and you can't beat Republicans for locking people up in jails. Here in Texas, that can put you away for 500 years for something like that, and we have a republican Sherriff who is death on sex crimes, so if you want justice that is the way you turn.What complicates that answer at the moment, and this is why previous research isn't going to be useful, is the “Me Too” movement which is really more a reaction to Trump than it is Harvey Weinstein. This is co-opted by the identity politics type over on the far left and mainly consists of twitter mobs hounding people who have been accused of bad behavior… it hasn't been successful in convicting people or getting much actual justice—a lot of “lynchings” of innocent people, as mobs, in general, aren't a good way of getting justice—you probably have to get one of those Republicans I was talking about to actually prosecute a coherent case to get justice. Just, for example, Bill Cosby is a Hollywood Type, and probably did most of his raping in California — he was actually convicted and brought to justice in Norristown, Pennsylvania, not Los Angeles. District Attorney.So while the short term pull might be to the left, I think in the long term the direction would still be rightward for someone who has lost the idealism and romanticism of the “just world hypothesis” —- if you believe in good guys and bad guys you are on the cognitive path towards the right.
Is it more morally just to become a defense attorney or a prosecuting attorney? Which has more clients that are obviously guilty?
Thanks for A2A.Is it more morally just to become a defense attorney or a prosecuting attorney? Which has more clients that are obviously guilty?There is no real variation in morality was to which side of the Law that one elects to represent. The Prosecutor is not usually representing the victim of the crime, even if the victim’s evidence is crucial to proving the case. He is representing the State, Head of State, the People, etc., while the Defence is representing the accused.While there are many instances where this adversarial approach results in playing to win, the intention of the process is meant to be establishing the facts.Therefore, unless the victim is “the accused” in another case, there is no cause to prove the guilt or innocence of the victim. The decision is whether or not the accused is guilty or innocent. So, the moral issue is whether or not you want to play to win, or to establish the facts.The difficult part for Defence Counsel is when the accused has admitted guilt to Counsel but still wishes to enter a plea of Not Guilty. “Yes, I killed him but, he had been bashing me for years.” Can Defence Counsel raise enough evidence to prove “self-defence”?It must be equally hard for Prosecutors when the alleged victim turns out to be lying. Separating fact from fiction to establish whether or not there is a genuine case against the accused can become very messy. This is the situation currently faced by Rolf Harris in the UK. He has been convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault against children (a total of four apparent victims). The public has dug up evidence which suggests that at least two of the victims could never have been anywhere near Mr Harris at the times of the alleged crimes, and there are mounting public campaigns to have this matter thoroughly re-investigated. If he’s still guilty in relation to the other two victims, those convictions should stand but, if he’s not guilty in relation to the doubtful victims then those convictions should be overturned.
What job in the criminal justice field is the least dangerous?
I was thinking of a cop, but it is a little too dangerous. ( I watch truTV too much)...So I was maybe thinkig of a crime scene investigator, forensic scientist, ot even a juvenile defense law attorney, is there any more options