<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Right of allocution subject to cross-examination</title>
	<atom:link href="http://apublicdefender.com/2008/07/27/right-of-allocution-subject-to-cross-examination/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2008/07/27/right-of-allocution-subject-to-cross-examination/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:43:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SPO</title>
		<link>http://apublicdefender.com/2008/07/27/right-of-allocution-subject-to-cross-examination/comment-page-1/#comment-35922</link>
		<dc:creator>SPO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1367#comment-35922</guid>
		<description>Do you guys really want the ability to cross-examine victims making their impact statements?  I doubt that it would be beneficial very often.  

Allocution, it seems to me, should be tested.  If some dirtbag wants to get up in front of the judge and pitch some tale of woe over why he didn&#039;t just burgle the house, but decided to rape the occupants or whatever, then the prosecutor should get to ask why he just didn&#039;t take the jewelry.  Ultimately, I think that the less information that gets in front of the judge/juries the better for your clients.  

I think you are right in that you come at this from a different perspective.  I positively despise violent or serious criminals.  They are a scourge upon our society, and they cause an awful lot of harm.  They have earned our hatred, and to be honest, I don&#039;t really care if the victim lies a little about the extent of the brutality.  Too bad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you guys really want the ability to cross-examine victims making their impact statements?  I doubt that it would be beneficial very often.  </p>
<p>Allocution, it seems to me, should be tested.  If some dirtbag wants to get up in front of the judge and pitch some tale of woe over why he didn&#8217;t just burgle the house, but decided to rape the occupants or whatever, then the prosecutor should get to ask why he just didn&#8217;t take the jewelry.  Ultimately, I think that the less information that gets in front of the judge/juries the better for your clients.  </p>
<p>I think you are right in that you come at this from a different perspective.  I positively despise violent or serious criminals.  They are a scourge upon our society, and they cause an awful lot of harm.  They have earned our hatred, and to be honest, I don&#8217;t really care if the victim lies a little about the extent of the brutality.  Too bad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: apublicdefender.com @ 2012-05-25 21:09:26 -->
