Female rapist goes SCOTT FREE!

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZX2Uf.27$pV4.14@dukeread03...






http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20060321/18234
85407.htm

The question is, why was the boy so reluctant to testify?

Because his mother didn't want him to testify! Where is the
father
in
all
of this and where is the father's opinion about how his son is
being
treated
in this case? Shouldn't fathers have some say in how their sons
are
treated
in the legal system? I can understand mothers with sole custody
controlling decisions about a child's education, religious
training,
and
residence, but can a court decree a mother the right to determine
a
child's
legal options?

I guess I should state the obvious. If a court won't allow a
mother
to
bargain away a minor child's right to child support why would a
court
allow
a mother to bargain away a minor child's right to access to the
criminal
justice system?

The mother didn't bargain away anything.

Please explain this comment that his "mother didn't bargain away
anything,"
when on another response you commented "His mother was the one pushing
for a
plea agreement so that it didn't go to trial." There must be some
nuance
there that I don't get.

You wanted to know how his mother could bargain anything away. She
didn't
strike any bargains as she had no authority
to bargain anything.

She can make her feelings known, but she can't strike any bargains. It
wasn't about her.


And a bigger question that faces society today is - Should an
individual's
personal rights trump the public's right of conscience?

Absolutely. The boy has personal rights. Why would you want to trample
on his right to privacy, in the interest of
"the public's right of conscience"?

The judge rejected the plea bargain agreement because it "violated the
conscience of the court." The judge wanted the public's right of
conscience
to be preserved and not allow it to be compromised by a personal desire
not
to testify.

It was the prosecutor who decided the boys personal rights (lack of
interest
in testifying because of anxiety over media attention) should trample on
the
public's right to conscience. Normally a prosecutor represents the people
and is charged with the responsibility to uphold our laws in a "justice is
blind" atmosphere. That is not happening here and I suspect this case is
not over yet.

To me this is just another sign about how our judicial system is broken.
What we have exposed here is the tail wagging the dog, i.e. the
prosecuting
attorney telling the judge screw you, you are wrong, so I am going to
embarrass you publicly. It is games like these that go on within the
judicial system that have caused me to lose all respect for the legal
system. The same thing happens in the CS system - The DA's tell the
judges
how to rule.

Worse than that; some yahoo mediator tells the judge how to rule.