SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The Sauna
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: The Philosopher who wrote (842)7/15/2001 9:33:23 PM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (2) of 1857
 
I am not a lawyer, so help me... what provision of the Bill of Rights do we have to change? I know VI says that the accused has to be confronted by the witnesses, is that what you mean? Would using testimony of the child given to a judge or someone else outside the courtroom, but in the presence of the defense attorney, not meet that standard?
Since it is the child who is the victim, does that mean that testimony of others won't suffice-- that the child HAS to be physically present to look at the accused?

Certainly children are manipulative, and they are malleable-(so are many adults). This very characteristic would seem to me to make them unreliable for either side in a public forum. In fact, in the Salem Trials, the children had fits in the courtroom. All the more reason to keep it lowkey and private.

It was the statement that it's better for a child to move on and forget prosecuting, that troubled me. I guess I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News