Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (827)	7/15/2001 2:07:09 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1857

I've never had a KK donut (no Krispy Kreme shops here). Are they really that much better than Dunkin's?

To: Rambi who wrote (827)	7/15/2001 3:38:09 PM
From: TradeOfTheDay	Respond to of 1857

Rambi, you are right of course. But why such logic is rarely used I have no idea. It just seems to be beyond the ability of courts to come up with a humane way to protect children and punish those that have harmed them - unless their injuries speak for them. ( I think I am lucky there is no KK here ...yet)

To: Rambi who wrote (827)	7/15/2001 3:56:04 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1857

If our system causes such damage to a child in the process of prosecuting the criminal, then change the system. That sounds excellent. But like many excellent ideas, it has hidden flaws. First, it means we have to change a basic provision of the Bill of Rights. Of course we can amend the Constitution, but is this the right issue to do it on? And no matter what people say about children not lying about abuse, the fact is that they are notiriously manipulatable witnesses. The Buckey case in California is one such, where children testified as to things that clearly never happened. Ditto with the Wenatchee trials. This is nothing new -- go back to the Salem Witch trials where children gave the most absurd stories. If the defendant isn't allowed to question the children, how can you assure that they are telling the truth? (Even then they may not be, because children can be brought to believe that things happened when they didn't at all, but the children believe them and they become truth for the child and he or she testifies accordingly.) It's not an easy choice, but unless we change our whole philosophy of crime and punishment -- that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than put one innocent person in jail -- and modulate to a system that says if you're probably guilty but we're not sure, you are guilty, what we have may be as good as we're going to get.