Comments on: The tender Crawford http://apublicdefender.com/2008/06/04/the-tender-crawford/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:34:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: The invisible “trend”: banned words | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2008/06/04/the-tender-crawford/#comment-33441 The invisible “trend”: banned words | a public defender Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:51:18 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1249#comment-33441 [...] child sex case has become a rubber-stamp conviction based on the “increasing trend” of not permitting a defendant to confront his accuser in court. How’s that for a trend? A real [...] [...] child sex case has become a rubber-stamp conviction based on the “increasing trend” of not permitting a defendant to confront his accuser in court. How’s that for a trend? A real [...]

]]> By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2008/06/04/the-tender-crawford/#comment-32919 SPO Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:39:37 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1249#comment-32919 You know, you may just want to inform people about the abuses inflicted by Janet Reno and Scott Harshberger . . . . Of course, that would mean trashing Democrats, and we cannot have that, can we? Gid, one thing you didn't make clear here is that there will be no opportunity to see what went into the finished product. Not only will there be no cross-examination, but there won't be a ton of evidence on any "coaching", but that, of course, never happens. I don't take child sexual abuse lightly, and emotionally anyway, I'd support the death penalty for particularly nasty episodes, but we have a Constitution, and part of the reason we have it is that people get to test the state's case. That's the categorical imperative. To be honest, even if a prosecutor could use these tactics, he shouldn't. Putting an innocent guy in jail is bad--rigging the game and putting an innocent guy in jail is tyranny. Jesus, didn't we learn in the 80s? You know, you may just want to inform people about the abuses inflicted by Janet Reno and Scott Harshberger . . . .

Of course, that would mean trashing Democrats, and we cannot have that, can we?

Gid, one thing you didn’t make clear here is that there will be no opportunity to see what went into the finished product. Not only will there be no cross-examination, but there won’t be a ton of evidence on any “coaching”, but that, of course, never happens.

I don’t take child sexual abuse lightly, and emotionally anyway, I’d support the death penalty for particularly nasty episodes, but we have a Constitution, and part of the reason we have it is that people get to test the state’s case. That’s the categorical imperative. To be honest, even if a prosecutor could use these tactics, he shouldn’t. Putting an innocent guy in jail is bad–rigging the game and putting an innocent guy in jail is tyranny.

Jesus, didn’t we learn in the 80s?

]]>