This makes me so angry, I WISH I could Hulk out

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1102761

Basically, they are debating a law for mandatory prison time if anyone rapes someone younger than 12.  One of the senators, a defense attourney, describing what he'd do if he ever is defending a perverted so and so and examining a 6 year old victim (the age of the repeatedly raped and murdered girl who inspired this law) said that he'd grill them so hard that:

when they're 8 years old they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep; when they're 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody

Okay, defense attourney have a job to do and I respect that, buy what kind of jerk runs around in a law debate and boast about how he's going to ruin 6 year old vicitim's lives?  I hope his constituents throw him out.  I hope his political career is ruined.  I don't care who he is, what political party he belongs to, or what good he's done in the past, this kind of behavior makes me so mad, I can't even think straight right now.

Oh and he actually did use the word "ruin" when referring what he'd do the the victim's life.

[crimsonquill]

"HULK SQUISH EVIL MAN WITH SMALL BRAIN BETWEEN TOES!!"
                                                                         \
                                                                         

[stumpy]

I am not a fan of the representative in question and I'm not taking his side in this. That said, the partial quote fails to note that he is predicting the law will make things worse for kids on the witness stand. He is describing what will happen to the witnesses if a law is passed that mandates twenty-year sentences and removes a judge and jury's discretion to take into account other factors during sentencing. His point, if you read the more complete quote, is that with so much more at stake, a defense attorney (who has to assume his client is not guilty) can't take any chances that a witness will be credible, so that defense attorney (he was using himself hypothetically) will be far more aggressive with the witnesses.

“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I’m going to rip them apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.”

You can disagree with his imagery and even his conclusion, but he was not advocating harsher treatment of child witnesses. His point is that the witnesses (the kids) will be worse off with this law because the attorneys of the defendants (some of whom are innocent, keep in mind) will be far more aggressive with them because the penalty is so severe.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Yeah, I thought of this later, although I still think his point is wrong.  It just sounded wrong the way he said it.

Forgive me for the pointless rant then, but when it comes to kids--well, the thought of anyone hurting them just drives me balistic is all.

[captainspud]

I'm going to side with Stumpy here-- the guy in the article has a valid point, and your quote completely gutted the context and changed the meaning of what he said. What's more, I don't see how you could POSSIBLY miss that context when reading the full quote, and I'm a little surprised at your selective parsing there.

Not cool, cat. Not cool.

[BWPS]

I'm going to side with Stumpy here-- the guy in the article has a valid point, and your quote completely gutted the context and changed the meaning of what he said. What's more, I don't see how you could POSSIBLY miss that context when reading the full quote, and I'm a little surprised at your selective parsing there.

Not cool, cat. Not cool.

In the article, the quote was taken out of context.

And would this new law cover statutory "defile", in cases where the "victim" consented?

[The_Baroness]

Few days ago I read a new that really put me on the same mood.... wanted to share it with you all but then due to the violent content it had i decided against it, it was a beating in a police station of a transexual woman.. so i can understand that cat was a little blinded by the strong emotions... thats normal , now the lawyer is right.. you must defend your client with every means... even if he is guilty... not that you have to like it, i know i would not like to defend someone like that... but i would have to do my best effort.

[BlueBard]

In the article, the quote was taken out of context.

And would this new law cover statutory "defile", in cases where the "victim" consented?

If you're talking about a child under the age of 12, consent isn't even a remote consideration.  It's child molestation, plain and simple.  :angry:

However, I would not extend that to two underage children playing "Doctor", since they simply may not know any better.  Nor would I suggest that anyone under the age of 16 be subject to incarceration with adults.  And those are some of the considerations that the legal system needs to be able to take into account.

But a full-grown adult molesting a child under the age of 12?  Heck, I'd support the death penalty and good riddance.  But the evidence needs to be more than circumstantial.  Hard evidence is essential, so there's no reasonable doubt.

[daglob]

The reason you have council, even if you are guilty, is to be sure that you have fair treatment under the law, NOT TO GET YOU OFF SCOTT FREE. Somewhere, sometime, this has been misconstrued and perverted to where some lawyers believe that they are doing good work by getting guilty people acquitted. You know, like "Sticking it to the man". While The Man often needs it stuck to him, the public in general does not. Council for the defense is there to make sure that the prosecution doesn't fake evidence, coach witnesses, and make sure that the sentence handed down is not out of line with the crime. The Defense tries to instill that "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury.
None of this has anything to do with letting the guilty go free.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I'm going to side with Stumpy here-- the guy in the article has a valid point, and your quote completely gutted the context and changed the meaning of what he said. What's more, I don't see how you could POSSIBLY miss that context when reading the full quote, and I'm a little surprised at your selective parsing there.

As was otherwise pointed out, I had no access to the original quote and went off what was present in the article.  They took it out of context, not me.

But in any case, his point is pure baloney.  Any competent lawyer is doing to do anything he can do, including harsh grilling of the witness, whatever the penalty.  Besides, this, the parent of the child can choose not to have her, or him for that matter, testify, although the consequences of that are obvious.  Some parents, by the way, do choose to let the guy free rather than putting their child through that.  That is their choice and I certainly don't envy the parents forced to make it.

[El Condor]

Anyone reading this article, or any such story, has to consider the source.  The Boston Herald is the city's taboid (the Boston Globe is the local paper of record). As such, it pumps up the distortion and emotionalism in an attempt to attract the readership that is troubled by the complextiy of difficult issues.  Note the editorialistic term "perv" in the story's lead paragraph.  The Herald uses such banal and inflammatory language in many of its headlines.  It has no interest in reporting the facts, as the paper would not survive in the same market as the Globe. Therefore, it has no choice but to play to the locals who are much happier when the world presented in simplistic terms. 

To me, this best serves as an example of why politicians speak in sound bites and ready-to-eat platitudes. We like to groan and shake our fists when officials won't "talk straight" about difficult topics, but need only to look at what happens when a congressman has the guts to speak directly, thoughtfully, and like an adult about such a troubling matter.  Maybe he should have just said "fry 'em all" and been done with it.  It sure would have played great on Fox News!

EC

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Eh, don't down on Fox News for whatever strange reason.  I'm quite fond of Fox News.

But I am rather embarrassed that I fell for this.  And that the source who pointed it to me was less discerning than usual.  I am usually quite careful and analytic, but we can all fall for it, I guess.

This doesn't mean that I still am not angry on some level for what the guy said and the false point he was trying to make by saying it, but it isn't quite what I originally thought.

[captainspud]

I'm quite fond of Fox News.

Um... why?

:blink:

[GhostMachine]

I'm quite fond of Fox News.

Um... why?

:blink:

Probably the entertainment value of how full of it they are. "Fair and balanced", my.....

[GogglesPizanno]

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on Today at 10:34:52 AM
I'm quite fond of Fox News.

Um... why?

I'm agreeing with Spud twice in one day....  :doh:

[stumpy]

I don't care for the talking heads shows on any of the news channels. They typically generate more heat than light, as best I can tell. As far as the straight news reporting goes, I've never been able to discern much difference between FNC and their competition. They're okay, and fairness and balance are fine, but less important to me than accuracy, context, and depth. And, for those latter things, all of the cable news channels are frankly inadequate.


Getting back to the topic at hand, I think the point being made by the Massachusetts legislator about more draconian sentences leading to more aggressive defense is quite valid. Of course, in an ideal world, defense counsel is supposed to (and, in fact, is required to) provide vigorous representation for any defendant, for any accusation. But, the reality is that lawyers are like anyone else in that the seriousness of their response is somewhat related to the peril their client is in. Does anyone seriously believe that, other things being equal, a lawyer will put as much effort into a purse-snatching case as into a murder charge? Not likely.

I do agree that he was bombastic in putting things the way he did, and he should have known it would be taken the wrong way.


BTW, though it is common to respect the wishes of parents, it's the prosecution that gets to decide whether or not a child will take the witness stand. That's the same as in any criminal case: It's not the victim who decides what the prosecution will do, but the government. Generally, it can be difficult to win a prosecution when a primary witness is uncooperative, so many prosecutors will not put them on the stand.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

BTW, though it is common to respect the wishes of parents, it's the prosecution that gets to decide whether or not a child will take the witness stand. That's the same as in any criminal case: It's not the victim who decides what the prosecution will do, but the government. Generally, it can be difficult to win a prosecution when a primary witness is uncooperative, so many prosecutors will not put them on the stand.

While that may be technically true, in most cases, they won't force a very young child to go through that kind of trama without the parents, and in many cases, the police are wholly unaware of entire incident unless the parent comes forward with the child.