Who's responsible for the kid? - Page 2

JaJae · 05-25-2007, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

If they can't prove that one specific brother is the father, then they are both responsible.

They both slept with the woman and they both share DNA with the child.

Why should they be responsible for a child that isn't theres?. In any other situation if I slept with a woman and she can't prove I'm the father of her child should I wouldn't be forced to pay child support.

There are some parallels here to capital punishment as well, essentially legally holding someone responsible for something you know 100% that one of them didn't do. Obviously it isn't taking a life, but it's using our court systems to bring justice so to speak to one father and infringing on the rights of the other.

JaJae · 05-25-2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

so you think if the situation was that a woman was raped by one of two twin brothers, but they can't prove which one (though they KNOW based on DNA that one of them did it) both of them should serve time for rape?

That was exactly the line of thinking I was going down. I think the major issue though is that degree of certainty for civil issues is different than for criminal issues. But even still for civil trials you essentially need more than 50/50 to find someone liable, which is exactly what this is. Therefore, is forcing them to pay infringing on their rights?

Scrum · 05-25-2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Why should they be responsible for a child that isn't theres?. In any other situation if I slept with a woman and she can't prove I'm the father of her child should I wouldn't be forced to pay child support.

But you cannot prove that you aren't the father either.

The woman is a whore for this, but the guys are just as responsible.

JaJae · 05-25-2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

But you cannot prove that you aren't the father either.

The woman is a whore for this, but the guys are just as responsible.

You can't prove I raped this girl. But I can't prove I didn't. They know it was either me or some other guy. So we're both responsible for her rape?

I don't have to prove my innocence. That's not how our court system works. They don't have to prove they didn't knock her up. The mother has to prove one of them is the father. It can't be both.

Scrum · 05-25-2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You can't prove I raped this girl. But I can't prove I didn't. They know it was either me or some other guy. So we're both responsible for her rape?

I don't have to prove my innocence. That's not how our court system works. They don't have to prove they didn't knock her up. The mother has to prove one of them is the father. It can't be both.

But in this case she can, i'm assuming, prove that she slept with both of them.

JaJae · 05-25-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

But in this case she can, i'm assuming, prove that she slept with both of them.

What does that prove and how does that hold them liable in court? I'm willing to bet she's slept with a lot of people in her life.

If you have sex with a woman who admittingly has sex with other men, and she can't prove who the father is, everyone is liable? I've seen enough Maury episodes to know it doesn't work that way.

Thorgrim · 05-25-2007, 03:12 PM

The government should pay for everything, I'd explain but you're already laughing

DosEquis · 05-25-2007, 04:57 PM

Each situation needs to be handled seperately on a case by case basis. I am addressing this case, where both men acknowledge (though they didnt know about each other) to banging this lady and she admits being serviced by both of them. One of the men needs to step forward without being contested by the woman or his brother and accept the responsibility, or they both need to be held accountable.

If she was raped... in the extremely unlikely event that there was absolutely no way that either one can prove where they were at the time of the rape, that there are no identifying marks the woman recognized..perhaps one guys shaves his pubes and the other doesnt.. (identical twins are not always 100% identical), no signs of a physical struggle on either man, and the guilty brother didn't step forward to face the consequences they deserved, than you would be forced to find them innocent... but that is just like any other rape case..other than the DNA matches two men. But you can't prove or pin it against either one so they are found innocent though one is guilty. DNA is not valid evidence in this case, and its not valid in the original scenerio above either because it matches two people. It is not unique.

Scrum · 05-25-2007, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What does that prove and how does that hold them liable in court? I'm willing to bet she's slept with a lot of people in her life.

If you have sex with a woman who admittingly has sex with other men, and she can't prove who the father is, everyone is liable? I've seen enough Maury episodes to know it doesn't work that way.

Then pick the brother that makes the most money and bring him to court for a paternity test. When he comes back as the father everything is done.

Donkey® · 05-25-2007, 05:08 PM

DNA test implicates them both. She gets a total sum of money that both have to split.

JaJae · 05-25-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Then pick the brother that makes the most money and bring him to court for a paternity test. When he comes back as the father everything is done.

This isn't immoral and illegal?

Kytro · 05-25-2007, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by six6ftr

I think that neither should pay unless they can prove which one is the father.

I agree with this, it in unreasonable to hold someone accountable unless you can show they were responsible.

In the larger scheme of things this situation is rare enough that it isn't a major issue.

Edit:

The court ruled that Raymon, the brother first named by Ms Adams as the father of her child, would continue to be liable, despite the ambiguity in the DNA results.

"When you are on the bench long enough, you see a lot of strange things," the judge hearing the case, Fred Copeland, told ABC News.

As for Raymon, he has vowed to press on to the supreme court. "If they can't prove it's me then they should throw it out of court," he said, adding of the maintenance claim: "The state should eat it."

Seems the judge just picked one.

In any case, I am agaist child support without the informed conset of the father during pregnancy.

motivez · 05-26-2007, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

But you cannot prove that you aren't the father either.

The woman is a whore for this, but the guys are just as responsible.

Disproving a negative doesn't seem the right way to go about this, you're innocent until proven guilty (or responsible would probably be a better term in this case)..

Like stated earlier, if this was a case of rape, should both of them serve jail time?

Scrum · 05-26-2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Disproving a negative doesn't seem the right way to go about this, you're innocent until proven guilty (or responsible would probably be a better term in this case)..

I could be wrong, but I thought civil court didn't work that way?

Besides, if you have a positive match of DNA it would be up to you to prove that the test is wrong, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by motivez

Like stated earlier, if this was a case of rape, should both of them serve jail time?

Well, look at situations like the Duke rape case (hope this isn't offtopic

). Prosecutors aren't looking to find the real culprit, they are looking for a conviction. If they could pin it on one or both they will.

motivez · 05-26-2007, 11:10 PM

The DNA matches two people, though, they haven't proven it was a single individual, and only one individual can be responsible for the pregnancy.

JaJae · 05-27-2007, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I could be wrong, but I thought civil court didn't work that way?

Besides, if you have a positive match of DNA it would be up to you to prove that the test is wrong, wouldn't it?

Well, look at situations like the Duke rape case (hope this isn't offtopic ). Prosecutors aren't looking to find the real culprit, they are looking for a conviction. If they could pin it on one or both they will.

And that prosecutor I believe has been fired and is being brought up on charges.

In civil court the burden of proof has been accepted by the courts to mean more than 50%. You can't be more than 50% sure either person is the father. Therefore, in a civil trial they can't legally be held responsible. Not that the courts haven't done stupid things in the past, but it would be a violation of their rights to hold one of them responsible.

Scrum · 05-27-2007, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The DNA matches two people, though, they haven't proven it was a single individual, and only one individual can be responsible for the pregnancy.

Perhaps one of our fine prosecutors who went to Pat Robertsons law school could argue that Jesus was born from a virgin, why couldn't the child belong to both men?

Hasn't there ever been a case where a twin has been accused of something and they used their sibling as a defense in this manor?

Scrum · 05-27-2007, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

And that prosecutor I believe has been fired and is being brought up on charges.

I wasn't condoning what they did, just pointing out something in our legal system.

Originally Posted by JaJae

In civil court the burden of proof has been accepted by the courts to mean more than 50%. You can't be more than 50% sure either person is the father. Therefore, in a civil trial they can't legally be held responsible. Not that the courts haven't done stupid things in the past, but it would be a violation of their rights to hold one of them responsible.

So the men should get off scot-free?

motivez · 05-27-2007, 01:49 AM

It's obviously not ideal for someone who is responsible to be able to escape responsibility, but if we just went around holding people responsible for actions we're unsure they were actually involved in.. it wouldn't be justice.

Nothing about this situation is ideal but I firmly believe that one has to be considered innocent by the courts until proven guilty.. they're still not sure which person is the father, and thus there is no proof.

JaJae · 05-27-2007, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

So the men should get off scot-free?

Unfortunately I believe so. If you can't legally come up with enough evidence to satisfy the burden of proof for the lawsuit, then they shouldn't be held responsible. We can't hold people responsible for something just because we feel someone should be. And we can't equally hold both people responsible if we know it was one or the other, but can't prove either. That's a very bad slippery slope for a legal system.