|
I understand that, but this rep went on to say that he in effect would destroy this child's life from that point on.
I may not have all the comments right, but these are close:
"I want to rip them apart, when they're 5, I want them to cry, whenthey are 8, I want them to have nightmares, and when they are 18, I want them to not be able to have any kind of relationship."
This is what was so uspetting to hear.
If you were a defense lawyer tearing into a 5 or 6 year old with this kind of mindset, you would have lost the jury and your case before you finished.
I still brings me back to the adverse legal approach that the victims are being put on trial, not the accused. The defense legal system doesn't really care if their client is innocent or guilty, but whether they can sway the jury in their favor, even at the expense of a young child's life. (It becomes a matter of the child being raped twice, once by the accused, and again by the system that's supposed to protect them.)
Keep in mind that when dealing with OLDER victims, it is more plausible to define the victims involvement: Did they get into something over their head and change their mind at the last second? Did they have a "plan" in mind to falsely accuse the accused? Was there money involved?
But I'm talking about LITTLE KIDS that have no motive, were raped/abused by an older person, and are about to subjected to the second worse thing in their life. How can that be good for anyone else but the accused?
Now this rep is saying, in essence, that he's willing to destroy a child's life to defend someone who's already destroyed their innocense. ruined?
|
Threaded Mode