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 (857)	7/15/2001 10:26:03 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1857

Yes, it's the confrontation clause. Some courts have allowed child witnesses to testify from behind screens so they don't have to actually see the accused, but this is rarely allowed, usually only when there has been very serious abuse. But the child has to give the testimony in the presence of the accused and the defense lawyer, and be subject to cross-examination. There are many proposals around, one of them being to allow the child to be in a different room and testify and be cross examined by video, without being able to see the courtroom and accused, but I don't know of any state that's allowed that, though maybe some have. 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. I think the theory is that once the accused is identified and the abuse identified, the child is unlikely to be molested again, and the cost to the child of having to be examined, testify, stretch it all out for months or years, is so traumatic and delays the healing process so long, relatively to a 4 or 5 year old, that it's better, some think, just to let the child get on with his life even if the accused goes free. It's one of those really unsatisfactory situations for all involved, but I'm not sure what a better alternative is that protects all the parties.

To: Rambi who wrote (857)	7/16/2001 11:43:17 AM
From: TradeOfTheDay	Respond to 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".