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: Rambi who wrote (857)7/16/2001 11:43:17 AM
From: TradeOfTheDay   of 1857
 
ooops Rambi... i was just catching up on some of the posts made last night, and realized I might not have made this very clear:

"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. "

In the D.A.'s defense, he didn't actually say it was better for them to move on and forget prosecuting. The defendant's ARE prosecuted... it just wasn't to the extent that I thought they should be. I had commented on some of the light sentences I had seen handed down - and he was trying to explain to me - that this 1) separates them from the kids for x amount of time, 2) stops the abuse for that amt of time, and 3) they can get a prosecution if they don't go for the max - but to get the max that some people (like me ) wanted , it would take more out of the kids than he thought they could give. He went on to explain that every case was different - if it was determined that the children were capable of reliving the experience by putting it into words, they DID go for the max. In essence, I guess what he was trying to say was " you don't always know the entire story and all the details... and some of the details are more horrible than you want to know or that can be put in the paper".
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext