View Full Version : Dem pledges: I'll 'rip apart' child-rape victims on stand
This guy obviously cares more about criminals (and his paycheck) than victims.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68014
n2ize
06-26-2008, 04:31 PM
Why does he want to "ruin the lives of the victims" ? Is he crazy ?
I can understand if he feels there are grey areas in which the law may impose mandatory minimums on a person who may not be a hard core sex offender... like a 17 year old who dates a 16 year old.
But to say he wants to destroy the victims and ruin their lifes is crazy. Either he's drunk or nuts.
K4GUN
06-26-2008, 05:07 PM
But to say he wants to destroy the victims and ruin their lifes is crazy. Either he's drunk or nuts.
Or a liberal criminal defense attorney. ;)
kb9xn
06-26-2008, 05:11 PM
He is looking for votes in the upcoming election and figures that if he can bam boozel you into thinking he is doing his job he will get your vote!!!!!
harrumph
kb9xn
His statement was more of a response to draconian sentences for convicted sex offenders.
I can sorta agree because some of the penalties for "sex offenders" are really too draconian.
Things such as consensual sex where, say, a 17 year old lied about her age to a 21 year old can quickly ruin someone's life for good and make them outcasts of society.
The label "sex offender" is often abused and encompasses a wide variety of criminal infractions, some of which are silly and shouldn't be outlawed in the first place.
Make no mistake, I want to see convicted child rapists put behind bars for life, but the 19 year old being convicted for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend really deserves no attention and interference from the law.
Funny
You can really tell by reading these posts that some folks have never been on a witness stand. If they had, they would realize the person on trial has all the rights and the witness on the stand has no protections at all.
K0RGR
06-26-2008, 10:06 PM
I don't want to defend this guy, but I think his comments are being taken out of context. I think he's saying that defense attorneys will do exactly what he's describing if the penalties for child abuse are increased. I don't know if WorldNutsDaily is distorting it in order to attack a Democrat, or just what.
There is some very sick truth to this, too. Defense attorneys do try to tear the victims apart on the stand. I've seen this in action, with an older kid, and it's disgusting. The ambulance chasers are just doing their jobs, which in this case is less desirable than sanitation worker.
Personally, I think people who hurt kids deserve all kinds of cruel and unusual punishment, and if you're a child molester, your rights are pretty much forfeit.
I don't want to defend this guy, but I think his comments are being taken out of context. I think he's saying that defense attorneys will do exactly what he's describing if the penalties for child abuse are increased. I don't know if WorldNutsDaily is distorting it in order to attack a Democrat, or just what.
There is some very sick truth to this, too. Defense attorneys do try to tear the victims apart on the stand. I've seen this in action, with an older kid, and it's disgusting. The ambulance chasers are just doing their jobs, which in this case is less desirable than sanitation worker.
Personally, I think people who hurt kids deserve all kinds of cruel and unusual punishment, and if you're a child molester, your rights are pretty much forfeit.
I read it that way, too. I saw the video of the statement and I believe he was speaking as an attorney who is in the position (possibly court-appointed) of having to defend an accused child molester. I don't think it was meant as a statement of his personal beliefs.
Whether or not the attorney personally thinks that his client is an amoral scumbag is immaterial - he is bound by licensure and ethics to defend his client using any legal means that the client himself would be entitled to use in his own defense. Hard-hitting, adversarial and even combative cross-examination is one of those legal and permissible means.
Frequently, the only witnesses to the alleged offenses are the victims themselves. If you restrict the ability of a defense attorney to vigorously challenge the statement of a witness you have essentially foreclosed the accused's right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence," as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Personally, I think people who hurt kids deserve all kinds of cruel and unusual punishment, and if you're a child molester, your rights are pretty much forfeit.
At the same time let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
kc9jwa
06-27-2008, 04:10 PM
What a sick a******, i know they get paid to rip into people but not try to help destroy lives, someone like him shall be in a real bad punishment.:mad:
K4GUN
06-27-2008, 04:40 PM
Yes, that is the context. But that doesn't make it any less palatable for a legislator to say. In this context, he should not be defending rapists. He should be defending his constituents. Reminding them that he is also paid to represent the scum of society wasn't a brilliant move.
What I find curious is the implication that if this law isn't passed, that such savage treatment of witnesses will stop. It doesn't matter if the possible prison term is 1 year or 20. A lawyer is going to fire away no matter what. He knows that. So why is he making this argument? It makes me wonder who's side he's really on.
K6BBC
06-27-2008, 06:20 PM
Your outrage over what this rep. said is clearly justified. Somehow connecting the fact he is a "dem" and all that conflation implies seems to be a bit of the manufactured outrage that seem prevalent today.
I would like to see the post where you are equally outraged by all the innocent children republican president Bush murdered in Iraq.
bbc
This guy obviously cares more about criminals (and his paycheck) than victims.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68014
Your outrage over what this rep. said is clearly justified. Somehow connecting the fact he is a "dem" and all that conflation implies seems to be a bit of the manufactured outrage that seem prevalent today.
I would like to see the post where you are equally outraged by all the innocent children republican president Bush murdered in Iraq.
bbc
Please note, I didn't write the headline.
N4VGB
06-27-2008, 08:51 PM
Somehow connecting the fact he is a "dem" and all that conflation implies seems to be a bit of the manufactured outrage that seem prevalent today.
I would like to see the post where you are equally outraged by all the innocent children republican president Bush murdered in Iraq.
BDS again eh? Bush Delusional Syndrome, that is! Why don't you check on the actual laws and how long a President can wage war on his own authority? Why don't you check on who provides all the authority to Bush for such undertakings and votes the financing for it also?
Why don't you ever consider why Reid & Pelosi block every attempt to investigate or impeach Bush & Cheney? Ya really think they're protecting this pair? NOPE, they're protecting themselves and the Dumbocrat Party, who are as complicit as any in what ails your soul.
K6BBC
06-27-2008, 09:49 PM
BDS. Bush Denial Syndrome.
bbc
BDS again eh? Bush Delusional Syndrome, that is! Why don't you check on the actual laws and how long a President can wage war on his own authority? Why don't you check on who provides all the authority to Bush for such undertakings and votes the financing for it also?
Why don't you ever consider why Reid & Pelosi block every attempt to investigate or impeach Bush & Cheney? Ya really think they're protecting this pair? NOPE, they're protecting themselves and the Dumbocrat Party, who are as complicit as any in what ails your soul.
N4VGB
06-27-2008, 09:58 PM
BDS. Bush Denial Syndrome.
bbc
Well now, that was the option of Congress now wasn't it? But they never denied him, because it's just so sweet and easy to point and say "Bush did it"?
Good front men/fall guys for Congress are hard to find. Ya think Obama can take the heat?
K6BBC
06-27-2008, 10:01 PM
As you enjoy quoting Truman; "The buck stops here,"
bbc
Well now, that was the option of Congress now wasn't it? But they never denied him, because it's just so sweet and easy to point and say "Bush did it"?
Good front men/fall guys for Congress are hard to find. Ya think Obama can take the heat?
N4VGB
06-27-2008, 10:06 PM
As you enjoy quoting Truman; "The buck stops here,"
bbc
NOPE! Ike was the last one like that. ;):)
I don't think we've had a real President since Ike.
K6BBC
06-27-2008, 10:14 PM
I think Nixon was a great, yet flawed president. Reagan helped the country too. Clinton and Gingrich were pretty good co-presidents.
bbc
NOPE! Ike was the last one like that. ;):)
I don't think we've had a real President since Ike.
N4VGB
06-27-2008, 10:17 PM
Clinton and Gingrich were pretty good co-presidents.
They both make my skin crawl at times! :eek:
K6BBC
06-27-2008, 10:26 PM
You are just one of those people who will never be happy.
bbc
They both make my skin crawl at times! :eek:
n2ize
06-27-2008, 11:28 PM
Funny
You can really tell by reading these posts that some folks have never been on a witness stand. If they had, they would realize the person on trial has all the rights and the witness on the stand has no protections at all.
There is a flight leaving for Burma. If you hurry you can make it.
n2ize
06-27-2008, 11:29 PM
I think Nixon was a great, yet flawed president. Reagan helped the country too. Clinton and Gingrich were pretty good co-presidents.
bbc
I think they all stunk.
k4kyv
06-28-2008, 04:14 AM
Many people fail, or are unwilling, to understand that there can be a big difference between "child molester" and "sex offender".
In Oklahoma and a few other states, it is a "sex offence" to do something so trivial as to urinate in public. If convicted, you are basically placed on a one-size-fits-all probation for life, limited to where you may live, work and travel, and with whom you may associate.
Can you imagine, in a civilised country like the US is supposed to be, that a person's life can be totally destroyed because (s)he had to piss, and with no public conveniences nearby, got caught doing it an alleyway?
kc9jwa
06-28-2008, 04:42 AM
Yes, that is the context. But that doesn't make it any less palatable for a legislator to say. In this context, he should not be defending rapists. He should be defending his constituents. Reminding them that he is also paid to represent the scum of society wasn't a brilliant move.
What I find curious is the implication that if this law isn't passed, that such savage treatment of witnesses will stop. It doesn't matter if the possible prison term is 1 year or 20. A lawyer is going to fire away no matter what. He knows that. So why is he making this argument? It makes me wonder who's side he's really on.
I agree if is very hard to trust, i guess most act like hard arses, but its thier job, and they do feel bad, but this guy my god i doubt he cares i dont know what side he is on, i guess he cares bout the money , and thats it they go free.:(
He might try, but I predict that if he did, the Massachussets Bar Association would insure he could never practice law again. He might even be suspended for speaking as the report has him doing -- if the reporting is accurate.
A defense atroney does have to at last attempt to show that witnesses against his client cannot be believed. How he does so is a sensitive matter, especially when those witnesses are children, and success might be bought at the cost of getting a guilty verdict because he offends the jury's sensibilities. So he has to be careful. The words used to describe his remarks are the opposite of careful, and I would hope they are not the words he himself used.
Note that I am not a lawyer. I do know some.
Cortland
KA5S
At the same time let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
That's the law, is it? Does it work?
Cortland
KA5S
N5NPO
06-28-2008, 10:58 AM
Like some trial attourney bragging about his ability to cross examine a hostile witness in such a way as to make them look bad... NEVER MIND ANY OF THE FACTS...
Right or wrong, it seems to be a game to some attourneys. In a court of law lives CAN easilly be destroyed by the power of the state without recourse.
Perhaps there should be a limit on lawyer/legislators... It is a conflict of interest to make up the rules in the game in which you, yourself and your buddies play.