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

[RJ 17]

Evidently the defense for disgraced and pedophiliac Penn State assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, is going to try and argue that the guy has a psychiatric disorder that seeks him to act out in order to get attention. This explains the inapporpriate letters that he sent to the boys accusing him of molestation.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12243462-judge-allows-defense-to-argue-jerry-sandusky-has-psychiatric-disorder?lite

I....I just can't help but think that the defense might be losing track of the bigger picture here. No one gives a damn about any letters Sandusky might have sent when he's being charged with BUTT-RAPING 10 YEAR OLD BOYS IN THE SHOWERS!

 

[dyre]

Or maybe this is just a small part of their defense? It's not like you're only allowed to make one argument!

Anyway, it seems like a response to the prosecution's claim that the letters were "'grooming' the boys for sex." I'm no lawyer, but I get the feeling a good defense should address the prosecution's accusations.

 

[MammothBlade]

I don't believe a personality disorder or any axis II disorder is an excuse for criminal behaviour. You can still make a conscious choice about your actions.

I'm just going to ask people in this thread to think before they post. His crime is horrible but people have a witch hunt style hysteria over paedophiles and I'm just asking you guys to keep the "I hope he gets fucking burned alive" comments to a minimum. You can be a paedophile and not be a criminal.

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.

 

[RJ 17]

Or maybe this is just a small part of their defense? It's not like you're only allowed to make one argument!

Anyway, it seems like a response to the prosecution's claim that the letters were "'grooming' the boys for sex." I'm no lawyer, but I get the feeling a good defense should address the prosecution's accusations.

Oh I imgine this is just one piece of the defense's argument, I just don't see how it's revelvant. Even if you prove that he wasn't "grooming the boys for sex" via letters, you still have to deal with testimonies such as another coach saying "I was in the locker room and heard the sound of wet flesh against wet flesh. I looked in the showers and was shocked ... I had no doubts I was whitnessing anal sex." or something along those lines.

Yeah, it looks bad for Sandusky if those letters aren't adressed and argued over...but like I said, big picture: numerous testimonies about buttsecks in the showers.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I think it's because, especially in the media, there's not enough of a distinction publicly made between "paedophile" and "child molester". And the only time you ever hear about paedophiles is when they've been convicted on child molestation charges.

Anyway, I don't know what more discussion is worth being had here. The defence tactic is stupid, and the child molester is going to prison.

 

[dyre]

Or maybe this is just a small part of their defense? It's not like you're only allowed to make one argument!

Anyway, it seems like a response to the prosecution's claim that the letters were "'grooming' the boys for sex." I'm no lawyer, but I get the feeling a good defense should address the prosecution's accusations.

Oh I imgine this is just one piece of the defense's argument, I just don't see how it's revelvant. Even if you prove that he wasn't "grooming the boys for sex" via letters, you still have to deal with testimonies such as another coach saying "I was in the locker room and heard the sound of wet flesh against wet flesh. I looked in the showers and was shocked ... I had no doubts I was whitnessing anal sex." or something along those lines.

Yeah, it looks bad for Sandusky if those letters aren't adressed and argued over...but like I said, big picture: numerous testimonies about buttsecks in the showers.

They seem to be trying to use this argument to dismiss some of the evidence used by the prosecution. Dirty letters are evidence of sexual assault, right? Perhaps not as damning as witness testimony, but it seems reasonable to address all the evidence involved. If the defense neglected to address the other, more important evidence, then yeah, that'd be dumb, but I see no evidence of that here.

At the end of the day, I trust the lawyers to know what they're doing more than I trust tabloids like CNN and MSNBC to give an accurate depiction of the trial.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Wait, so the child molestation was witnessed by multiple people, has physical evidence of raunchy letters they do not deny were sent to the boys from the coach, and the defence are going for the "It's all a big misunderstanding" excuse?

And the case is being decided by jury? His goose is cooked, and almost certainly rightly so.

 

[the abyss gazes also]

So this case has what is commonly called "bad facts." The defense team, as far as I can tell, doesn't have much to work with. Made worse so by the way that Sandusky keeps... well... talking.

In this case, people should really cut the defense some slack. (Not in the court room, but in the media interpretations.)

Having worked with public defenders for a while I feel really bad for them. It looks like they are stuck with the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" defense.

 

[Ithera]

Well... the defense has to do what they can for their client, no matter how horrible the allegations. I'm not going to fault them for trying every trick in the book.

 

[The Funslinger]

I don't believe a personality disorder or any axis II disorder is an excuse for criminal behaviour. You can still make a conscious choice about your actions.

I'm just going to ask people in this thread to think before they post. His crime is horrible but people have a witch hunt style hysteria over paedophiles and I'm just asking you guys to keep the "I hope he gets fucking burned alive" comments to a minimum. You can be a paedophile and not be a criminal.

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.

Indeed, it's just an inclination towards certain actions.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Rosenhan's study on being sane in insane places? It has a lot of relevance to the whole thing with people playing the crazy card to get off the hook.

At what point do we differentiate between "attention seeking wanker" and "mental disorder that manifests in him being an attention seeking wanker"?

More to the point, if it were a disorder causing him to act out for attention, I should think the choices in action would be a lot more spontaneous and varied. This is focused and premeditated.

 

[Chappy]

Well it is a case like this that would put me off being a defense lawyer if I decide to go into law after my degree is up instead of the Forensic route, I just wouldn't know how to defend such a crime.

I guess that their tactic is the rather obvious attempt for leniency or for him to be sent to a hospital rather than a prison apart from that I wouldn't know what case they would attempt to help him this isn't my area of law unless a death was involved.

I do know something on Expert's though and I would feel sorry for the poor guy they are calling in on his behalf your treated well and with respect as an Expert but the regulations can be tough on you as well as the need to try and act impartial don't think I could.

 

[Esotera]

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.

 

[zefiris]

I'm just going to ask people in this thread to think before they post. His crime is horrible but people have a witch hunt style hysteria over paedophiles and I'm just asking you guys to keep the "I hope he gets fucking burned alive" comments to a minimum. You can be a paedophile and not be a criminal.

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!

 

[Lionsfan]

So this case has what is commonly called "bad facts." The defense team, as far as I can tell, doesn't have much to work with. Made worse so by the way that Sandusky keeps... well... talking.

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 not attracted to young boys."

Also the fact that his attorney got a 16-year old client pregnant [http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/jerry-sandusky-lawyer-joe-amendola-a-16-year-old-client-pregnant-married-article-1.977873], and then married her really doesn't help matters either

Wait, so the child molestation was witnessed by multiple people

I don't recall anyone saying they witnessed actual molestation, just "odd" or "suspicious" activity.

I believe Mike McQueary allegedly witnessed an incident in the shower, along with a Janitor


As for my personal opinion, everyone at Penn State involved in this was trash. From JoePa to the Administrators, everyone who brushed this aside is just gah...the worst kind of person