Sandusky Child-Rape Trial Update: The Defense's Tactic.

[Vegosiux]

The defense is legally obliged to do whatever is in their power to defend the defendant. I don't get all this hate on defense lawyers, they're basically doing their job, no matter how unsavory the defendant is. Just like sewer workers have to deal with literal shit sometimes, a defense attorney needs to deal with societal shit sometimes, and can't just go "Nu-uh!"

'sides, a defense built on the defendant being messed up in the head only results in the defendant walking away scot free in the movies. In reality, he doesn't get picked up by officers and tossed into jail, he gets picked up by orderlies and tossed into a loony bin.

Would you rather just have him burnt at the stake or drowned for witchcraft or something? Because giving the defense a fair hearing, whatever they are accused of or their mental health, is pretty essential for a valid trial.

Pretty much this, with the added twist that if the defense doesn't do its damnest to actually efend the guy, we get a mistrial, the defense attorney possibly jailed, and the entire thing just drags on and on.

A firm defense is in the interest of the prosecution and the process.

 

[Insomniac55]

I don't care what he's accused of... he deserves a fair trial and an adequate defence. I don't understand why people seem to struggle with the idea that criminals, regardless of how heinous their alleged crime, or how obvious it seems to be that they are guilty, deserve a fair trial. Until you are *proven guilty*, you can't be held responsible for whatever crime you've been accused of! It is the defence's job to defend their client to the best of their ability. Personally, I would struggle to defend someone I thought was guilty, so I have a considerable respect for lawyers who are able to put aside their own preconceptions.

If indeed someone is guilty, I hope they get the book thrown at them. Until that point they should have every chance to have their arguments heard. I know that if I'm ever accused of something I'm not guilty of, I hope I get a damn good opportunity to prove my innocence.

To think anything else is sensationalist, hysterical and downright medieval.

 

[Iron Criterion]

I can distinguish between paedophiles (people who are attracted to children) and child molesters (paedophiles who act out on their attraction), and I think he should be permanently castrated without anaesthetic, rather than burnt alive.

From what I have seen the majority of people cannot. They go full on "thought police" when it comes to this topic.

You don't know what Thought Police are do you.

 

[chadachada123]

I can distinguish between paedophiles (people who are attracted to children) and child molesters (paedophiles who act out on their attraction), and I think he should be permanently castrated without anaesthetic, rather than burnt alive.

From what I have seen the majority of people cannot. They go full on "thought police" when it comes to this topic.

You don't know what Thought Police are do you.

Nor do you, clearly.

Many a time, not solely on this forum and especially on Facebook, I have seen people suggest that *all* pedophiles are child molesters. More importantly, I have also seen many people suggest that all pedophiles should be killed or shipped to a deserted island or something, for a sexual attraction and thoughts that they have no control over.

That's...kinda what Orwell's thought police would do: punish thoughts that you may not have control over.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

So when did the U.S. have its constitution rewritten? Last time I checked there was an important part about individuals having the right to a fair trial and being innocent until such a trial has concluded, not before or during.

But hey, feel free to eat up media propaganda and anything else you read. I'm sure you have all the facts.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I don't care what he's accused of... he deserves a fair trial and an adequate defence. I don't understand why people seem to struggle with the idea that criminals, regardless of how heinous their alleged crime, or how obvious it seems to be that they are guilty, deserve a fair trial. Until you are *proven guilty*, you can't be held responsible for whatever crime you've been accused of! It is the defence's job to defend their client to the best of their ability. Personally, I would struggle to defend someone I thought was guilty, so I have a considerable respect for lawyers who are able to put aside their own preconceptions.

If indeed someone is guilty, I hope they get the book thrown at them. Until that point they should have every chance to have their arguments heard. I know that if I'm ever accused of something I'm not guilty of, I hope I get a damn good opportunity to prove my innocence.

To think anything else is sensationalist, hysterical and downright medieval.

You mirror my thoughts exactly, friend ^^

A man was arrested over here (Australia) recently, charged with the murder of his wife. Long story short, the moment police arrested him, the entire community around him was shouting and spitting venom at him. The news reported on it that night (with a surprising amount of objectivity for a modern news report) and from then on everyone I came into contact with would refer to him as "that guy who killed his wife."

The way people assume knowledge, believe the media without a second thought and treat an arrest as a conviction, you'd think we lived in Iran.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Even more common is the "there's totally a witch hunt going on!" thing.

Which totally works, when the guy has gotten away with this for years, and people ignored it for that long. Wonder where all those witch hunts went, if people go on them so quickly...yet somehow, he got away with all that stuff. WEIRD!

I suspect that's at least partially it happens.

People ignore the issue most of the time, and make up for incoherently yelling "burn him" at high profile cases every so often.

Of course, if he happens to be guilty, the reaction isn't unjustified. For best outrage, he should confess to what he did and flee the country, you could get lots of mileage from that. Unfortunately, people have mostly forgotten Polanski, and he makes movies people like, so time to move on to someone else.

 

[Eamar]

I don't care what he's accused of... he deserves a fair trial and an adequate defence. I don't understand why people seem to struggle with the idea that criminals, regardless of how heinous their alleged crime, or how obvious it seems to be that they are guilty, deserve a fair trial. Until you are *proven guilty*, you can't be held responsible for whatever crime you've been accused of! It is the defence's job to defend their client to the best of their ability. Personally, I would struggle to defend someone I thought was guilty, so I have a considerable respect for lawyers who are able to put aside their own preconceptions.

If indeed someone is guilty, I hope they get the book thrown at them. Until that point they should have every chance to have their arguments heard. I know that if I'm ever accused of something I'm not guilty of, I hope I get a damn good opportunity to prove my innocence.

To think anything else is sensationalist, hysterical and downright medieval.

This, a thousand times. I'm really not sure what this thread is trying to say :/

No-one outside that courtroom is in full possession of the facts. I'm not denying that he sure looks guilty right now, but there are many, many cases where a defendant appears to be 100% guilty until new evidence or an indisputable alibi turns up. We are simply in no position to judge until the trial is over.

Also this:

if the defense doesn't do its damnest to actually efend the guy, we get a mistrial, the defense attorney possibly jailed, and the entire thing just drags on and on.

A firm defense is in the interest of the prosecution and the process.

EDIT: it seems bizarre that there's a tendency among some people in this community to treat an arrest for child molestation as tantamount to a conviction, yet whenever an adult rape case is mentioned the hordes descend to complain about false accusations and how suspected rapists' identities should be protected until they're proven guilty...

 

[Someone Depressing]

I think they're missing the point, here. He raped several 10-year-olds over 15 years. It doesn't matter if he's insecure or has histrionic disorded. He raped several kids over 15. Fucking. Years. It outright says guilty. I don't even know why this is under debate, really.

 

[subtlefuge]

Rather than causing a witch hunt against child molesters, let's use witches to hunt them and flay them. Better resource allocation.

Still, there are distinctions to be made, but not in this case. It's pretty clear cut that he allegedly abused his position of power to rape little children.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Honestly, reading the reports of the testimony from Victims 1 and 4, the defense was grasping at straws waaaaay before they brought in this bullshit. A mental disorder may explain something, but it sure as hell doesn't excuse it. Hell, HPD may not even be IN the DSM-V when that comes out.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I can distinguish between paedophiles (people who are attracted to children) and child molesters (paedophiles who act out on their attraction), and I think he should be permanently castrated without anaesthetic, rather than burnt alive.

From what I have seen the majority of people cannot. They go full on "thought police" when it comes to this topic.

Yeah I used to be guilty of that...

OT: Really, unless they can find a psychiatric disorder of some kind that makes people fuck children in the shower, that kind of excuse just will not fucking fly. "Acting out to get attention" is not something that overlaps with "violates young boys" enough to be used as an excuse.

 

[RJ 17]

Yeah no kidding. Interviews like this, only further convicted him in the minds of the public


The lowlight:

COSTAS: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?"

SANDUSKY: "Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?"
COSTAS: "Yes."
SANDUSKY: "Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys.

It takes him about 20 seconds from when the question is asked to say, "No I'm attracted to young boys."

You know someone's about to lie to you when they repeat the question back to you like that. "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, underage boys?" That's a pretty straight-forward question that doesn't need much clarification. Your answer should either be a yes or a no. You don't repeat the question as though you're trying to understand the meaning behind it...like you really want to say "Well that depends on what your definition of "young boys" is...."

Also the bit about "I have horsed around with them. I have hugged them. I've...touched their legs."

It's literally almost exactly like the Michael Jackson interview
"Do you believe it's proper for a 45 year old man to sleep in a bed with 13 year old boys?"
"Yes! I just love little children so much, and I like to share my love with them. I believe that one of the most loving things you can do with a person is to share your bed with them."

Or something along those lines.

 

[Insomniac55]

I think they're missing the point, here. He raped several 10-year-olds over 15 years. It doesn't matter if he's insecure or has histrionic disorded. He raped several kids over 15. Fucking. Years. It outright says guilty. I don't even know why this is under debate, really.

I think you're missing the point, here.

He's been accused of raping several 10-year-olds over 15 years. Yeah, from here it looks like he's guilty. If I had to place bets, I'd say he was. And if he is, here's hoping he's locked up for the rest of his life. But until that point, you must assume he is innocent.

Honestly, I wish more people would watch this film in their lifetimes.