I don't know. I thought the reason some people are like that was because they weren't comfortable with the idea of children having horrible things happen to them. I thought denial (claiming that accusations tend to be witch hunts) looked more attractive to them than the reality, and that blaming the victim, leading to the hostility, makes them feel safe -- the old idea that they can then tell themselves that since they and people close to them don't deserve abuse, it won't happen. Classic case of heads in the sand. It's just that their attitude would be less harmful if they really would just put towels over their heads so the Bugblatter Beasts wouldn't know they could see them instead of doing the victim-blaming thing or refusing to believe that abuse is real.
Or is the question, "Why don't we live in a better universe?" I don't have an answer. We can keep trying to improve this one, though, raise awareness, like you're doing here, etc. Yes, I'm horrified, too. Thank you for bringing it to people's attention.
and if he did that here, he'd be defending himself in an abuse case...not to mention disbarred from practice and probably looking at counter-claims for damages.
We have laws about hostile prosecution.
At least, for now we do...I hear they're talking about overhauling legal practices and moving to a more 'modern' [read american] model of a justice system.
Hrm, don't know how I ended up surfing *here,* but there's two words at the top of the page that make me doubt this is an accurate representation of what that Democrat was saying.
"Boston Herald."
I suspect he was speaking rhetorically to suggest that mandatory sentences would cause defense attorneys to rip children apart on the stand, not expressing hostility toward child victims.
The same words were reported verbatim in several different sources.
I know that he was being rhetorical. But "defense attorneys will skewer witnesses and traumatize them more harshly than the criminal did" should *never* be an argument against taking more criminals to court. The mere fact that it is (but only for rape and child abuse crimes) is a problem in this society.
(I don't even agree with mandatory sentencing, and I think it's a lousy argument against)
I don't quite see the full logic there, either. But if the law's likely to result in such abuses in the courtroom, then they likely need to come up with a better law, or fix that part. Though it's an unfortunate but real factor that a lot of cases go unreported or unprosecuted cause the families of the victims don't want to put the kids through a trial
( ... )
The full argument was that by requiring mandatory sentences for people convicted of child sexual abuse crimes fewer people who are accused of such crimes will choose to plea bargain. More will choose to go to trial, thus leading to more defense lawyers questioning children in the manner in which Fagan describes
( ... )
Comments 13
Or is the question, "Why don't we live in a better universe?" I don't have an answer. We can keep trying to improve this one, though, raise awareness, like you're doing here, etc. Yes, I'm horrified, too. Thank you for bringing it to people's attention.
Reply
We have laws about hostile prosecution.
At least, for now we do...I hear they're talking about overhauling legal practices and moving to a more 'modern' [read american] model of a justice system.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"Boston Herald."
I suspect he was speaking rhetorically to suggest that mandatory sentences would cause defense attorneys to rip children apart on the stand, not expressing hostility toward child victims.
Reply
I know that he was being rhetorical. But "defense attorneys will skewer witnesses and traumatize them more harshly than the criminal did" should *never* be an argument against taking more criminals to court. The mere fact that it is (but only for rape and child abuse crimes) is a problem in this society.
(I don't even agree with mandatory sentencing, and I think it's a lousy argument against)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment