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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (14213)	10/28/2003 3:42:35 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793788

>>Hard cases make bad law. From the perspective of the laws that protect victims' rights, this is a train wreck waiting to happen.>>< what "bad law" does she refer to here? the rape shield law? everytime i've ever heard the expression "hard cases make bad law" it has been in the context of new laws being written to address a perceived inadequacy in existing law stemming from a poorly adjudicated case. is this her concern? new "bad laws" will come out of this case? Estrich didn't say that the woman should not have reported the rape. What she said was that it shouldn't have been prosecuted by the prosecutors true, but what estrich did say: The prosecution blew this one by not exercising its discretion, by not treating rape like they do every other crime i would like to hear exactly how the prosecution deviated from treating this rape case unlike "every other crime". all i have heard is the "postergirl" argument from her in that article. estrich is not in the courtroom, estrich has not examined or cross-examined the victim or the accused. you may not calling the victim a "postergirl" for nuts and sluts defense criticizing the woman for coming forward, but from there she makes the leap that it should not have been prosecuted. and then she goes much further than that by "acquitting" bryant of the charge. it is obvious that estrich has concluded that this was a false rape charge and that the prosecution and judge were wrong to proceed when she writes: And it probably will, although I'd feel more certain if Johnnie Cochran were asking the questions. But there are always misfires. There is always a danger -- because of bad strategy, because 12 people believe her and not him, because of racism or bad lawyering -- that in one case it will go wrong. And even if a jury acquits, Kobe Bryant will never be the same. You don't get your reputation back, or your life Indeed, without question he is presumed innocent. The prosecution will have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm just not going to prejudge the case one way or the other.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14213)	10/28/2003 6:58:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793788

The "under God" plaintiff is perfectly adequate. Despite the fact that he's not the custodial parent, he's the father of the child, and he thinks she's being injured, even if she doesn't. She's just a child. If she thought it was ok to work in a strip joint, that doesn't mean he has to agree. Further, the time to challenge his standing is long past. I'm fine with the pledge as it is, but if they change it, fine by me, too. When I was in high school, I used to remain silent when it was said, because I thought it was a lie ("with liberty and justice for all.") I outgrew that. My parents wouldn't have let the school officials to force me to say it, but they didn't try.