If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Children's Books/Central Female Characters | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | January 18th 06 05:48 AM |
Ooops... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 2 | October 2nd 04 04:09 AM |
Stop killing Innocent Puppies! (Petition) | The Puppy Wizard | General | 0 | October 10th 03 06:59 PM |