12-10-2008, 07:02 AM
I am very sorry to hear about your cousin. You have every right to feel frustrated over what happened. May he rest in peace.
But I think you are confused about what it means to be a liberal. Here's the contradiction:
1) You think it is "liberal" to give bail to a defendant who has pled guilty to child molestation/rape (the Oahu case). The insinuation is that liberals are too soft on child molest defendants.
2) You think it is "liberal" to separate a child from a defendant who stands accused of child molestation even when the defendant's own attorney advises him that he will lose at trial. The insinuation is that liberals are too hard on child molest defendants.
So which is it? Is the justice system too hard on accused and/or convicted child molestors, or is it too soft?
And which is liberal -- bending over backwards to protect children from accused child molestors until things can be sorted out or not protecting children sufficiently by giving bail to a convicted child molester? Do liberals want to protect children as much as conservatives do? Of course, they do.
We will never know if the justice system would have worked in the case of your cousin because he deprived himself of a trial, and, sadly, his daughter of a father when she could have used one most --her early teens. I like to think that if he were innocent that he would have been found not guilty. But we were deprived of the opportunity for exoneration because of a lack of faith. Our system runs on faith: faith in its institutions, and faith in one another, conservative, liberal and in between, to do the right thing. When you sit on a jury, you are surrounded by people who think differently than you do. It is astounding how often they all come to the same conclusion given the facts.
False accusations are unfortunate. They are also a crime. Experienced counselors, social workers, and judges can tell the difference between truth and falsity, and when a child has been coached and has not.
In any case, there is nothing "liberal" about letting a convicted child molestor with no prior record out on bail to settle his affairs before reporting to prison. While I wouldn't do it (I'm a hard-assed liberal), the judge has discretion to do so, and when faced with a guy who runs a small business, a family (with children) with no prior record who wants to wrap things up a judge might be willing to give bail. 99 times out of 100, the bailee will report back. This case was an abberation. You don't make law based on abberations.
As for your cousin's case, nothing "liberal" about that either -- in fact, the system was hard on him (is that liberal or conservative?). We as a society have agreed to separate a parent from a child when there is a credible allegation of child abuse. It's the right thing to do. Nothing liberal about it. When a defendant doesn't make the state prove its case, he deprives us all of justice.
Protecting children from abuse is a shared value --straight, gay, liberal, conservative.
But I think you are confused about what it means to be a liberal. Here's the contradiction:
1) You think it is "liberal" to give bail to a defendant who has pled guilty to child molestation/rape (the Oahu case). The insinuation is that liberals are too soft on child molest defendants.
2) You think it is "liberal" to separate a child from a defendant who stands accused of child molestation even when the defendant's own attorney advises him that he will lose at trial. The insinuation is that liberals are too hard on child molest defendants.
So which is it? Is the justice system too hard on accused and/or convicted child molestors, or is it too soft?
And which is liberal -- bending over backwards to protect children from accused child molestors until things can be sorted out or not protecting children sufficiently by giving bail to a convicted child molester? Do liberals want to protect children as much as conservatives do? Of course, they do.
We will never know if the justice system would have worked in the case of your cousin because he deprived himself of a trial, and, sadly, his daughter of a father when she could have used one most --her early teens. I like to think that if he were innocent that he would have been found not guilty. But we were deprived of the opportunity for exoneration because of a lack of faith. Our system runs on faith: faith in its institutions, and faith in one another, conservative, liberal and in between, to do the right thing. When you sit on a jury, you are surrounded by people who think differently than you do. It is astounding how often they all come to the same conclusion given the facts.
False accusations are unfortunate. They are also a crime. Experienced counselors, social workers, and judges can tell the difference between truth and falsity, and when a child has been coached and has not.
In any case, there is nothing "liberal" about letting a convicted child molestor with no prior record out on bail to settle his affairs before reporting to prison. While I wouldn't do it (I'm a hard-assed liberal), the judge has discretion to do so, and when faced with a guy who runs a small business, a family (with children) with no prior record who wants to wrap things up a judge might be willing to give bail. 99 times out of 100, the bailee will report back. This case was an abberation. You don't make law based on abberations.
As for your cousin's case, nothing "liberal" about that either -- in fact, the system was hard on him (is that liberal or conservative?). We as a society have agreed to separate a parent from a child when there is a credible allegation of child abuse. It's the right thing to do. Nothing liberal about it. When a defendant doesn't make the state prove its case, he deprives us all of justice.
Protecting children from abuse is a shared value --straight, gay, liberal, conservative.