Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
800,000 substantiated abuse cases last year. 2500 of those were fatal. A 9/11 every year, and no one gives a damn. There is simply no way this level of abuse can occur without society or at least large segments of of the society simply ignoring the issue--if not outright condoning it. Spare the rod and spoil the child, eh?
Our response as responsible citizens should be to ferret out these behaviors and eliminate them. Clearly, at the very least, Church activities have been at least in some measure to blame for providing environments where abuse can occur with relative immunity. I have provided several hundred examples today, and I could easily provide hundreds more. I have other things to do. I would think among sensible adults one example would be satisfactory. Not so. The response, sensibly, and certainly from any moral perspective I can imagine, isn't to become defensive or evasive, but rather we should join in lock-step in pronouncing the most unified condemnation we can. Clearly, this isn't going to occur.
Again, I don't see that this conversation will have a constructive resolution. Many of the pertinent issues are simply too close to home for many to think about the issue in a fair, informed, and sensible manner. I think that it will be most instructive to simply read between the lines and understand that petty un-informed factionalism and self interest is vastly more important than the welfare of children, at least at this stage of social development we collectively manifest in this nation.
Posts: 2,655
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
I would agree that most abuse cases, including sexual abuse cases, are within the family. That is the reason prosecutions are weak or nonexistent. Invariably there will be pressure from within the family to drop the prosecution. As for abuse by persons with authority in churches, I find it inexcusable. However, the same will hold true in any situation where certain people are put in positions of authority over others who trust them and look to them for leadership. The Catholic Church has the added burden of supposed celibacy. In only a very few cases will someone be so pure of heart and strong in faith, and remain that way, that they can devote themselves so totally to their god. I think there are many more Catholic priests than there are men that pure. As for solutions? I think society has to change to the point that family members shun anyone who commits such acts and activly seek their prosecution. Any other solution might have more negative consequences than the positives results would justify. I would hope the Catholic Church has learned it's lesson by now.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Jon,
I believe that just about everyone has one of these repulsion stories so I will share mine with the Punaweb folks.
Twenty five years ago my cousin who was thirty five years old and married to a divorced woman with a two year old daughter. They shared a life for six years, my cousin was wealthy but their marriage was failing at a rapid pace no matter how hard he endeavored, therapy, marriage councilors, the whole nine yards. He was then accused of child molestation on the now nine year old child by the wife.
Here is where the liberal system took over. He was separated from his own home and restrained form being within 1,000 yards of his house and family unit. He categorically denied any and all charges including additional charges that were leveed upon him. The legal system had him dead to rights because the child said after many consultations that he touched her in a very inappropriate manor, [those were the words from a nine year old.] So off to court they go both criminal and divorce court. She was gain ground on the divorce big even before he was convicted of molestation and made it quite evident that molestation was the rationality for the divorce and protection of her child from this predator was paramount. The court seem to agree even though he had not been convicted yet.
My cousin had a very good lawyer [maybe I should just say very expensive] and he advised him to plea the charge out, because if he didn’t he would surly receive 10 years or better and that it didn’t look good for him with the testimony of the mother and child. Mind you now he had raised this child since she was two years old. The attorney got a bargain from the DA and advised him that he should take it, one year in the can. My cousin couldn’t handle the idea that he would be labeled as a child molester in jail and took his own life before going to trial. The wife got everything including the pats on the back for being rid of that child molester. After all he got what he deserved.
One year later, the child was now eleven and started to feel guilty about what had happened. She was in therapy because she had lost the only father she had ever know [my cousin] She voluntarily confessed that her mother had put her up to the whole thing and Michael [my cousin] never touched her. The therapist, because of the gravity of the situation confronted the mother and she himd and hawed around the subject and said that she just did what she had to do.
No charges were ever brought against the mother and she got to keep everything awarded to her. The daughter never married but was in and out of rehab and finally six years ago took her own life. The wife has been married three more times and still lives in Tucson Arizona in one of the houses that she “inherited” after the death of her husband [my cousin.]
I know the next thing some will say is why didn’t the family sue the bitch. Because my family are not like the Goldmen family that sued OJ for wrongful death. But I send her cards on many occasions wishing her the worst of luck and reminding her that there are still many out here that hate her.
Sorry for the long story but the child molestation thing needs to be revamped so that children are protected and the real bad guys go to jail. In this case you know who that should have been.
The Lack.
Posts: 2,980
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
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.
Glen, thank you for responding and let me try and make my perspective clear.
You wrote:
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.
The Lack:
Yes Glen, that is exactly the way I feel. The crime of child molestation by a pedophile is too horrendous to be given bail after conviction or confession of such a crime. In this case [the Oahu case] Frank Lefrandt fesse up to his accusers and for doing so the liberal attitude [everyone deserves a second chance] gave him the opportunity to rabbit. Now he is free to practice his mania while the real victims are looking over their shoulders in fear of him.
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.
The Lack:
Glen, liberals will automatically take the word of a mother and child no matter what. The liberal system is now a machine that penalizes the accused even before a investigation is completed. The system could have taken the mother and child away from the situation and placed them in protective custody until a crime has been “reasonably established.” The mother and child need all of the protection that they can get, and me as a tax payer believe that my taxes are well spent protecting the ones that can’t protect themselfs. To automatically harass the accused because of ones gender [strong male-weak female] is the liberal attitude. A restraining order was issued the moment the accession was made. Now the system took over and made my cousins life a living Hell even before any conviction/confession took place. Please try and remember that he categorically denied all accusations but it fell on deaf ears and it took his death to bring the truth to light.
Glen wrote:
So which is it? Is the justice system too hard on accused and/or convicted child molestors, or is it too soft?
The Lack:
Now you tell me Glen. Do you really think that liberal idealism has any place in the judicial system? Do I think that liberal are too hard or too soft on child molestation cases? I think that liberal should stay where they belong and keep forming little groups for the good of the people and leave the justice system alone.
The Lack
Posts: 859
Threads: 10
Joined: May 2008
The solution is easy... Right now all children belong to the state... you can say what you want, but that is the way thing are right now. The parents are just the ones that pay and feed the kids.
I am very conservative on most things (Shock) but here is one you will consider me a nut (or even more of a nut). Children should be the property of their parents until they reach a "set age". The parents should be held accountable for all acts by their children from birth to 5 years after they pass the "set age" unless the authorities have been notified of passable problems (these problems would be investigated and the parents my be held liable for them also). The parents made the product, they should be responsible for how it works.
Also, abortion would be legal up to the "set age".
Divorce would "not" be allowed as long as there are kids under the "set age", except for extreme reasons (no more no fault) and Child Support is never forced by law or contract.
That take care of a few problems....
No more child protective services, no more "oh it for the children" or any of that. No more Divorce just because. No more milking the working parent or the high paid parent.
Children are a responsibility... treat them as such.
Transplanted Texan
"I am here to chew bubble gum and kick some *** ... and I'm all out of bubble gum"
-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that America is better than everybody else...
America "IS" everybody else.
The Wilder Side Of Hawaii
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
Maybe this IS a "liberal/conservative" issue. Liberal judges, and conservative pedophiles.
Posts: 859
Threads: 10
Joined: May 2008
I bet, like other mental disorders, pedophilia does not care what your political leanings are.
Transplanted Texan
"I am here to chew bubble gum and kick some *** ... and I'm all out of bubble gum"
-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that America is better than everybody else...
America "IS" everybody else.
The Wilder Side Of Hawaii
Posts: 8,471
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Well, conservative / liberal flogging has trashed another topic and, as usual, accomplished nothing.
I'm going to start deleting and shutting down topics that run off at the mouth too much.
Kiss this topic good bye...
Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
|