Queen Elizabeth the First didn't get married for the more important reason that she had seen just how much of a mess her dear old Dad had left Britain in, and she wasn't going to repeat the mistake that her older half sister had made by allowed her husband to make matters even worse. She couldn't find a man that she felt wouldn't drag the British Empire down to an even lower level than the perilous situation that she had inherited, so instead she used her feminine charms of resourcefulness, genuine compassion (particularly towards the Catholic minority, and controversial artists such as Shakespeare), ability to communicate across all boundaries, and budgeting in a brilliant effort to lead on her own. Britain was on a knife's edge when she took the thrown, but at her death she was credited with bringing Britain into its golden age.

"The D.A. didn't do his job, and the scorn and condemnation coming down should be falling on HIS head for doing such a piss-poor job."

In other words justice isn't blind, its bankrupt (both morally and financially). We are going to see more cases, like the prostitute raper, get thrown out, because competent D.A.s and assistant D.A.s weren't hired, and weren't given the funds to finance a good prosecution. Such a sad state of affairs gives legitimacy to vigilante justice, as we can't depend on the justice system to fight for justice for the victims.

Are we a nation of justice for all, or a nation of justice only for those that can afford it? If the later is the case, then in the future a lot more individuals and small communities are going to be taking justice into their own hands. Wouldn't it be better to just gruesomely murder the guy who raped your mother, wife, daughter, extended family member, or good friend than attempt to get justice through the legal system, if you know that the process for justice is only going to be too lengthy, too expensive, and too incompetent to obtain a conviction? A system without rules (justice) is the definition of chaos.

"continuing our nation's dangerous slide toward total corporatism."

The Republican manifesto summed up in one line.

I wonder if a corporation would ever offer to pay the persecution fees if one of their employees got raped? For some reason I seriously doubt that pursuing legal justice for their employees that have becomes victims of a crime will ever be a fringe benefit offered by a corporation (especially not for anyone in the corporation that doesn't have their own office).

Internal chaos has taken down bigger empires than the United States.

To LeftyChris, you wrote:

"A man saying he won't ejaculate inside a woman during a consensual sexual encounter automatically becomes a rapist if he does?"

Do you agree that the man's actions that you described should be considered a crime? I think if there was a verbal agreement between the man and women, before consent was given, that he would not cum inside of her, and he did anyways, then he is guilty of rape. But I will be willing to drop the rape label to the lesser charge of "inappropriate unconsented sexual force." (yeah I know I invented the word unconsented, but I think it fits in that case).

You wrote:

"Huh? No, an accused person should be considered innocent if all charges are dropped against them before there's any trial."

No, such an individual is considered "not-guilty." They don't hand out innocent verdicts at trials, and if a case doesn't get to trial, then it is still considered open (until the statute of limitations has run out). OJ was found not-guilty, but few will say he is innocent. A lot of rapists receive hung juries, and they are not consider innocent. like wise is the case for rapists that never get to trial. And a lot of rapist got off on technicalities.

No, such an individual is considered "innocent until proven guilty." They don't hand out innocent verdicts at trials (they hand out guilty or not-guilty verdicts), and if a case doesn't get to trial, then it is still considered open, and thus possible to be proven guilt (until the statute of limitations has run out). OJ was found not-guilty, but few will say he is innocent. A lot of rapists receive hung juries, and they are not consider innocent (they are consider innocent until proven guilty, unless the statute of limitation runs out before a trial against them can be brought to court). Like wise is the case for rapists that never get to trial (innocent until proven guilty). And a lot of rapists get off on technicalities, but they are still rapists, just rapists that didn't face competent prosecutions.

Why did you omit my disdain for Chaos, and my support for more funding for competent persecutors and persecutions? The question of mine you recited was meant to be rhetorical. I don't support chaos, which is exactly what vigilante justice is, but as a nation we are heading for more vigilante justice if we only have justice for those that can afford it.

BTW I meant to write the subject title as "Small adjustments to last letter."

Yeah I know, I need to proof read more.

America is one of the few nations in which a not guilty verdict cannot be appealed. In Japan it is quite for common for rapists to be found not guilty in the first trial, only to have the acquittal appealed once more evidence comes to light, such as DNA evidence, which would constitute a second trial, which almost always earns a conviction. Japan has a much lower rape rate, very high conviction rates (for all crimes), very low falsely convicted rate, and low incarceration percentage (compared to America).

I won't say which system is better (as a lot of other factors are involved), but it is worthy of study.