Man am I ticked OFF!!!

[dmccarty]

leoniru,

You are correct about NAMBLA and similar organizations. At
least one profession pyschriatric group was discussing the
legitamacy of adult-child sex. Makes me angry as ^&*(.

But I don't agree with some other things that you said about
pedophiles and homosexuality.

If a man has sex with a boy is that homosexuality?
If a man has sex with a girl is that heterosexuality?

Well the answer to both questions is no. Pedophiles desire
children. They often are VERY specific on whether they like
girls or boys. The specifity is down to age, or looking at
certain age, as well as a certain look, i.e., hair color, body
shape, etc. I could go on but I'll just leave it at that...

Pedophiles are pedophiles. They desire children. I think
people confuse the issue with discussions of heterosexuality
and homosexuality. Pedophiles are pedophiles.

Later,
Dan

 

[PitbullMidwest]

<font color=blue>I don't believe in capital punishment. If murder is wrong then murder is wrong no matter who does it.</font color=blue>

Murder is the taking of an innocent life, capital punishment is just that, the punishment for taking an innocent life. If murder is murder why don't we lockup everyone who kills in self defense?

 

[cp1969]

Pardon me, Harv, while I make a distinction here: IMHO, none, as in zero, of the protections in the constitution were put in there to protect guilty persons. I hope we agree on that?

If we can all agree that the constitutional protections are to protect innocent, not guilty parties, then a lawyer who uses technicalities to free a person whose guilt is known has used the legal system not to protect an innocent person, but to turn lose a criminal who in all likelihood will repeat his offense on a new victim.

I am firmly convinced that is NOT what the writers of the constitution had in mind.

edit: Upon further reflection, there is one constitutional right pertaining to guilty parties: The right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. But letting guilty people go free is a far cry from cruel and unusual.

 

[Chuck52]

Charles,

We do have the presumption of innocence thing out there. Johnny Cochrane is not one of my heroes, but not every accused person is guilty. Some of the really obvious cases of the guilty getting off rankle, but what's obvious to some isn't to others. I hope they have the right guy in this case.

Chuck

 

[cp1969]

Chuck,
Yes, I know. I am talking about a person whose guilt is KNOWN, though, as in being caught in the act.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>IMHO, none, as in zero, of the protections in the constitution were put in there to protect guilty persons. I hope we agree on that?</font color=blue>

No.

First thing is the cruel and unreasonable clause I do believe had the guilty in mind from the get go.

Second thing. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Even those caught in the act.

You see there is this slope that's a tad waxed, sorta slippery.

It goes something like this: If we catch them in the act then they're obviously guilty and so we punish them poste haste. Then it goes to, so and so saw it and so they're obviously guilty and punishment is due. Then it's they're obviously guilty so why waste the time and cost of a trial. They look guilty. Let's hang them on that tree over there.

<font color=blue>then a lawyer who uses technicalities to free a person whose guilt is known has used the legal system not to protect an innocent person,</font color=blue>

Now who is to blame for that technicality screw up? It sure isn't the defense attorney. He's just pointing it out.

If you insist upon blaming someone for an obviously guilty party walking then why don't you put the blame where it's due? The person or persons who blew it. Not the attorney who sees that not only as an infraction upon the rights of the defendant, guilty or innocent. But an infraction against our system, your rights, my rights.

<font color=blue>I am firmly convinced that is NOT what the writers of the constitution had in mind.</font color=blue>

Maybe we can discuss just why they were so concerned about unalienable rights. You see when we deny rights for them for any reason we set ourselves up to lose those very rights.

There's this wonderful catch 22 in our system that is centered upon rule of law. The rights are for all of us, each and everyone.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>As an example I'll mention the recent efforts (and if I'm not mistaken, passed into law) to make a persons I.Q. score (70 or higher to be 'eligible' for the death penalty) a qualifier for capital punishment. When I first heard of this even being considered by our brilliant legal minds, I laughed to myself because I figured it had as much chance as the proverbial snowball in Hades. But guess what? Yup, it's a done deal.</font color=blue>

And this is as it should be. We don't punish children with the death sentence for committing capital offenses. Why should we treat those who have the mind of a child any different?

Even the bible refers to an age when one is responsible. So why shouldn't we as a society at least do the same?

<font color=blue>Don't be surprised if 'Johnny'--while sitting in a room down the hall from the gas chamber--- doesn't give his best when taking his I.Q. test.</font color=blue>

If you'd read a little about this decision you would understand that these state laws that encouraged this Supreme Court understood this aspect of human nature and only historical tests are relevant for deciding the IQ of the person being sentenced.

<font color=blue>Folks, we have got to take a stand and say enough is enough with foolishness of this magnitude. These perps are NOT reformable or rehabilitatable (pick whatever politically correct term you find acceptible). If an individual is capable of planning and carrying out a homicidal act, well then, to my way of thinking, they are competent enough to be held accountable for their actions. A severely mentally retarded individual would not be capable of carrying out a lot of these horrific deeds that so often become tied to some sort of psychological defense. I don't want to hear how 'Johnny' has ANGER MANAGEMENT issues. Or how 'Susie' ran out of her sedatives and took it out on the kids one day.</font color=blue>

Wow, it almost leaves me speechless. But not quite. I guess you attitude about the deed is the deed and darn the details would work great for curing drinking and driving. I mean if a person is drunk and they cause a fatal then there is no defense. Someone dies someone pays the ultimate price, simple. We could even stretch it just a bit farther and add a driver being inattentive while behind the wheel. Someone dies then there is no mitigating cirumstances, period.

But if we say that a drunk wasn't really themselves when they drove into that bench of kids waiting on the bus. Then we might also consider that Suzie might have been just as off of her normal self when she was out of her prescription and took it out on the children. Or that a mentally challenged individual could not be held legally responsible for a heinous crime because they really didn't understand the difference between it and what they'd seen on tv.

I didn't want to copy and paste all you said. This was enough for me. "<font color=blue>They believe that humans are SEXUAL AT BIRTH, and so children really want to be sodomized and fellated as much as they would like to do it to them. Right now, they and all of their allies (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance, etc), are actively pushing for the COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF ANY AGE-RELATED BARRIERS TO SEXUAL ACTS.</font color=blue>"

You see you're talking about and directly to me. I am the proud parent of a thirty five year old gay son. I also happen to be the proud parent of a straight son, two straight daughters but they're not part of this conversation, funny how that works.

We support quite a few of the gay and lesbian groups. And I don't know of any of them actively supporting NAMBLA. NAMBLA to us is equivalent to the Davidians to mainstream christians. We can't agree with their philosophy but we understand they do have the right to have one.

And for anyone to suggest that we support NAMBLA is like someone saying the Baptists believe Jesus died in the inferno at Waco.

Sorta funny how it works. You have a son that's gay and you go through all the what happeneds. Then one day he looks you in the eye when you're having a serious discussion on the issue and it hits you dead between the eyes. It would be just as hard for him to be sexually attracted to a woman as it would for you to be attracted to a man sexually. Not really too far a stretch from one guy liking girls with big hooters and another guy not.

So I have a gay son. He's a great son. He treats his mother wonderful. He's a good citizen. He's a great friend. He's a wonderful uncle and a fine brother in law. He's honest and decent, works, pays taxes, he just likes men instead of women. I have some friends who have straight sons that none of the above can be said. So I'm proud of him.

Would I choose him to be gay? No. And I don't think he made that choice either.

BTW if you saw my son and three or four of his friends in the mall and you had your kid with you chances are you'd point to them and suggest that maybe they were SEALS or Green Berets or at least members of a SWAT team. They're not sissies and they don't look like one either.

<font color=blue>Now I realize that not all gay men are pedophiles but A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF ALL PEDOPHILES ARE HOMOSEXUAL.</font color=blue>

Actually the vast majority of pedophiles are favorite uncles or dad's bud or dad. The greatest threat to children for sexual predation is family and friends of the family. Homosexuals are kept far enough way where they're not an issue. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

<font color=blue>I can never understand why individuals, who are unhappy with The United States of America and it's traditional values (or what's left of them), never seem to choose the obvious-- i.e. to LEAVE THIS LAND and go to any of dozens of other countries that either tolerate activity that's not tolerated here, or are so repressive that what they are striving for (e.g. no one can own a firearm) already exists.</font color=blue>

I've often wondered that very thing myself. I mean you take that case in California where the judge decided there was some concern about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience being against the Constitution. Shouldn't the folks who don't like the way our forefathers set up this wonderful system of balance between what the majority wants versus the rights of the minority just leave instead of ranting? After all the American way is all about the Constitution and rule of law.

 

[rmorgan]

Charles, as to the intent of the Framers, I trust you will agree that they were in large part guided by many of the principles of British jurisprudence. In that context, I note the following with respect to a copule of your points:

<font color=blue>IMHO, none, as in zero, of the protections in the constitution were put in there to protect guilty persons. I hope we agree on that?</font color=blue>

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." Blackstone, William (1723 - 1780) British jurist. Commentaries on the Laws of England, Bk. IV, Ch. 27

<font color=blue>If we can all agree that the constitutional protections are to protect innocent, not guilty parties, then a lawyer who uses technicalities to free a person whose guilt is known has used the legal system not to protect an innocent person, but to turn lose a criminal who in all likelihood will repeat his offense on a new victim.</font color=blue>


"A lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge." Johnson, Samuel, Tour to the Hebrides (J. Boswell), 1773

It seems to me beyond debate that the protections of the Constitution are, and were intended to be, for guilty and innocent alike, and although I am glad not to be a criminal defense lawyer, IMHO one who does not make sure the government turns square corners in its investigation and prosecution has not only malpracticed but encouraged future misconduct.

 

[cp1969]

This comments are addressed to several posters.

I've heard that "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be punished" but where is that spelled out in the constitution? Also, as I said, that is a protection for innocent people, not a mechanism to set a ratio whereby guilty people to go unpunished. Every legal system ever devised fully intended that those who ARE guilty GET punished; it just says that if the case cannot be established beyond 'reasonable doubt' (or whatever) that an UNPROVEN charge shall be dismissed. That is completely different from a defendant who is caught in the act or admits guilt to his lawyer. O.J., as much as I disliked the outcome of that case, is an example of the former. He is probably guilty (a civil court found so) of that crime, but his guilt was not proven--so he walks. He's an example of the price we pay so that innocent people don't get sent to prison. The state simply didn't have a case that could convince that particular jury (something like five billion to one odds that the DNA wasn't Simpson's notwithstanding).

On the other hand, had he freely admitted his guilt to his legal team, what then? Of course, O.J. killed adults and is probably not likely to kill again, so the case in which his legal team pulls every string (or leather glove over latex) to free him, though it leaves a nasty taste in our mouths, we get over it.

On the other hand, murderers of children seem to conjure up a particularly nasty taste, so consider this hypothetical situation: Assume the murderer of question in this thread (Mr. Avila?) admits to his lawyer that he in fact did murder this little girl and even worse, it isn't the first time he's done this. What sort of defense should this attorney mount? An all-out effort to keep this person out of jail? What this country seems to lost sight of is that defendants are entitled to legal representation to see that justice is meted out fairly, not that anyone, regardless of guilt, is entitled to an all-out defense to avoid justice. Assume further that said counselor sees a loophole or technicality that offers the possibility of getting the charges dropped.

Now, extollers of the virtues of the legal system, defend it on this hypothetical case, and this one alone--don't introduce the possiblity that he 'might' be innocent because he's not. How should this person be represented? With legal representation to protect him against unfair punishment (I don't know what that could possibly be) or with lawyer who through his knowledge of playing 'the game' a little better, gets him set free?

Finally, with all due respect to Mssrs. Blackstone and Johnson, although I'm sure they were great legal minds, neither opinion would seem to apply in this case. Is what they're saying written into law anywhere? I have opinions, too, just nobody's bothered to publish any of them, but I will steal part of a phrase which I seem to remember to summarize my feelings on this: If the legal profession feels it is their moral obligation to obtain 'not guilty' verdicts irrespective of the actual guilt of the defendant, then the legal profession is an a$$.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Morning Charles,

I know we're ganging up on you. But it seems to be working. I do believe you're coming around. That's a good thing. And I believe it's a good reflection upon your ability to reason. Some folks can't.

Your hypothetical situation would depend entirely upon the attorney involved. It would come down to just how committed they were to the principles of our justice system.

You see if we break the rules for one then we break them for all. And if I recall correctly the pledge of allegience mentions something about justice for all. Something we start indoctrinating into lawyers from their first day of school in childhood.

It's sorta interesting how each and every case has to be tried upon it's own merits. But under no circumstances are the principles of the system to be compromised. Even for such a scenario as you've presented.

So I'd hope the attorney would present a vigorous defense and if the prosecutors or police had screwed up use that information to keep the system pure. Even if it meant allowing the perp to walk.