- 25 Feb 2023 06:52
#15266175
Man sentenced to life in prison for rape of girl, now female has recanted her testimony. But they are still not releasing the man from prison!
He was convicted even though there was pretty much no other evidence than the girl's accusation.
Her Boyfriend Has Been Locked Up For More Than 26 Years, Dr. Phil
Dr. Phil: "John Kinsel has been in prison for 26 years, convicted of raping Alyssa when she was just a child, a crime that he has never wavered. He says he did not do that crime. He's never wavered about that."
Attorney Justin Bonus, who is now representing Kinsel: "And that's the scary thing, that a person can be convicted of a crime that didn't happen. This happens every day in the criminal justice system."
The child who accused this man was only 9 years old at the time. She was angry that he was her mom's boyfriend, that he had become part of their family, and then angry when he tried to act like her father and discipline her.
They did a medical examination on the child to try to determine whether rape had occurred. The way the doctor explained the findings of the examination might have confused the jury. People are looking for a yes or no answer but this type of medical exam usually cannot give a yes or no answer with certainty, and that was especially true in this case. The findings did not really indicate rape but were still consistent with rape, meaning the doctor believed it was possible rape could have occurred but it was more leaning towards not showing that a rape had occurred.
The man had three trials. During the first two, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict. In the third trial, the jury was 9 to 3 , and it looked like another mistrial. But the judge sent the jury back in the jury room and one of the jurors finally relented, so the jury then became 10 to 2. At that time under the law in that state this was enough for a conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court later made a ruling prohibiting convictions in this situation, but the decision was not retroactive, so the man continued to remain in prison after this ruling.
In my personal opinion, if a man is accused of rape, he should get far less punishment if there is no other evidence that it happened, besides the victim's accusation, because there does exist a fairly significant chance the man might not be guilty.
But some people seem to have trouble viewing these sorts of situations in terms other than black and white (i.e. he either did do it or he did not do it).
He was convicted even though there was pretty much no other evidence than the girl's accusation.
Her Boyfriend Has Been Locked Up For More Than 26 Years, Dr. Phil
Dr. Phil: "John Kinsel has been in prison for 26 years, convicted of raping Alyssa when she was just a child, a crime that he has never wavered. He says he did not do that crime. He's never wavered about that."
Attorney Justin Bonus, who is now representing Kinsel: "And that's the scary thing, that a person can be convicted of a crime that didn't happen. This happens every day in the criminal justice system."
The child who accused this man was only 9 years old at the time. She was angry that he was her mom's boyfriend, that he had become part of their family, and then angry when he tried to act like her father and discipline her.
They did a medical examination on the child to try to determine whether rape had occurred. The way the doctor explained the findings of the examination might have confused the jury. People are looking for a yes or no answer but this type of medical exam usually cannot give a yes or no answer with certainty, and that was especially true in this case. The findings did not really indicate rape but were still consistent with rape, meaning the doctor believed it was possible rape could have occurred but it was more leaning towards not showing that a rape had occurred.
The man had three trials. During the first two, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict. In the third trial, the jury was 9 to 3 , and it looked like another mistrial. But the judge sent the jury back in the jury room and one of the jurors finally relented, so the jury then became 10 to 2. At that time under the law in that state this was enough for a conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court later made a ruling prohibiting convictions in this situation, but the decision was not retroactive, so the man continued to remain in prison after this ruling.
In my personal opinion, if a man is accused of rape, he should get far less punishment if there is no other evidence that it happened, besides the victim's accusation, because there does exist a fairly significant chance the man might not be guilty.
But some people seem to have trouble viewing these sorts of situations in terms other than black and white (i.e. he either did do it or he did not do it).
- By Unthinking Majority
- By Saeko
- By Tainari88
- By MistyTiger