Quote:
Originally Posted by srmom
I think he just went WAY over the top in his impassioned speech. He could have gotten his viewpoint that mandatory sentencing was the wrong tact to take legislatively without saying that he would "rip apart" child rape victims.
And, while there are cases where there are many more that are not.
People are already afraid of going to the police and pressing charges because of what might happen, that they won't be believed, or that they will be ripped to shreds by defense attorneys, being victimized by, not only the rapist, but by the legal system as well.
Do you think this type of diatribe helps reassure victims that they will be treated fairly by the system?
Also, IMO, child molestation is a sickness. There have been too many cases of repeat offenses, often escalating in violence. Many molestors themselves have testified to a uncontrollable compulsion. With courts being too lenient in some cases, mandatory sentences may be the only way to get some jurists to take seriously the crime.
Case in point:
I can keep googling and will find case after case of this.
How is it "draconian" to be sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence AFTER being convicted of a heinous crime? And, I personally find raping a child under the age of 12 pretty darn heinous.
|
What happens if the person didn't do it? What happens if the child made it up? You seem to be saying that we should start with the premise that the person is guilty, work from there, and that anyone accused of the crime should be railroaded through the system.
I understand that his wording was unfortunate, and he should have thought of a calmer way to say it. I get his point, though.
Threaded Mode
