This isn't a case of he said/she said. The truth is open for anybody to see. I don't think the word "underfunded" has ever been used as much as it was in 2009. The public admittance is clearly out there, saddled with all of the corroborating first hand accounts of criminal acts. The only reason, in this case, for somebody not to be able to confirm what happened is simply because they choose not to. You can argue to what degree he is guilty, but you just simply can't argue that he isn't guilty.
Personally, I would say that in most cases where its a man who has declared his innocence that it is responsible for a society to wait to hear all the facts of the case. In other cases, like the example with Mark, I think it is downright irresponsible to let a known, self admitting criminal continue on his criminal ways. I have not seen a turn for the better over there since he has been charged. Redemption does not seem to be a major priority for him, based on his shady TADG tactics, hair trigger bannings and a Stalinist wall of silence.
Imagine if your friend was charged with multiple rapes, but swore his innocence. The responsible thing would be to wait and hear the facts in court. Now imagine if your friend admitted to multiple rapes. Would you feel he could be innocent of the actual crimes regardless of what happens in court? Would you feel comfortable letting him date unknowing women while waiting for trial?
