If some stranger had his way with your kids, would you want a defense lawyer doing what he said he'd to those kids?
Of course not, but if you believe in the rule of law, it's unavoidable. But equally, if you’re sitting up there wrongly accused would you want your defense attorney taking half measures when your freedom is on the line? Why even have a trial otherwise, unless it's just a show trial in advance of the lynching. I guess the duke lacrosse players should be rotting away in jail now, right? They were charged with the crime, right? Must be guilty, right?
First off, I’m no lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that such an approach against such a young child would be beneficial in almost any case in front of a jury – from a practical manner. Even so, what about these cases where hysteria and believing children whose testimony had been manipulated by unqualified investigators ruins lives? Are children off limits where justice is concerned?
The McMartin preschool fiasco is one I'm familiar with. Saw the TV movie even. All sorts of accusations of sexual and other abuse. People stood trial, lives were ruined and almost, much worse. Fortunately they had defense attorneys that took the years and made the effort to prevent the worst from happening to innocent people. Almost surreal, except for how deadly serious it was to those on trial.
McMartin preschool trial
Main article: McMartin preschool trial
"The case began in August 1983 when the mother of a 2 1/2 year-old boy reported to police that her son had been abused by Raymond Buckey at the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California."[1] After seven years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. As of 2006, it is the longest and most expensive trial in the history of the United States. The accusations involved hidden tunnels, killing animals, Satan worship, and orgies.[4]
Nine of 11 jurors at a press conference following the trial stated that they believed the children's testimony. These same jurors stated that they believed that the evidence did not allow them to state who had committed the abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. [5]
In 2005, newspapers reported that a former student had completely retracted his story and said he lied, attempting to protect his younger siblings and to please his parents. [6]
In The Devil in The Nursery, Margaret Talbot for the New York Times summarized the case:
When you once believed something that now strikes you as absurd, even unhinged, it can be almost impossible to summon that feeling of credulity again. Maybe that is why it is easier for most of us to forget, rather than to try and explain, the Satanic-abuse scare that gripped this country in the early 80's -- the myth that Devil-worshipers had set up shop in our day-care centers, where their clever adepts were raping and sodomizing children, practicing ritual sacrifice, shedding their clothes, drinking blood and eating feces, all unnoticed by parents, neighbors and the authorities. [7]
David Hechler, author of The Battle and the Backlash - The Child Sexual Abuse War, states:
“What happened at the McMartin Preschool will be debated for a long time. Few aspects of the case are clear, but it requires no strain of credulity to believe that the children could have been abused at the facility without being diagnosed by a pediatrician.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trialAnd there's more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sexual_abuse_hysteriaNot all of these had the "happy"" ending of the McMartin case.
The Salem Witch trials are another, older example.
So yeah, I guess I would actually want to make sure the crime was real in the first place, and that if it was, the real rapist is actually punished for the crime. But again, for all his talk I can't really see abusing a young child on the stand in front of a jury of our "peers" as being a beneficial tactic.
BTW, I have no problem with the 20 years mandatory prison time as long as the defendant was allowed a fair trial and had competent representation. In fact, 20 years seems a bit short. It's hard to see any need for judicial sentencing leeway when the victim is under age 12.
Charon
