Taunton Rep outrage

[likwid]

Tim, His point was, a defense attorney's job (EVERYWHERE) is to destroy the credibility of the accuser.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I for one would rather there be one court case, the guy gets max life no parole than go through appeal after appeal with a kid being dragged into a courtroom and interrogated/harassed again and again. And I believe that was his point.

[FishermanTim]

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?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

This is what was so uspetting to hear.

I completely agree 100%
But thats exactly what they do.

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.

But a good defense lawyer is gonna do the above, and make the point that kids lie, kids are scared and say whoever, and keep thrashing away at this point trying to get the kid to say something else, then the jury is split and you have a mistrial. Defense attorney gets paid.

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.

One in a million its the wrong person and that defense attorney just saved someone's life. It really does go both ways.

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?

As a defense attorney? Yes.
Its the death penalty.
Not life in prison w/o parole.
Death, the end, its all over. The kid gets therapy and it hopefully works, the other guy? A pine box.
At that point, you want the meanest most ruthless defense attorney you can find.

Its how the system works.

I can't tell if you're angry at both the ruling and the Rep or angry that the rep was willing to explain what a defense attorney will do to the victim in a death penalty case?

[FishermanTim]

I would say that based on the example used by the Mr. Fagan, it would seem more likely to backfire on you if you unleash/unload on a 5-6 year old with that type of mentality. I do understand that when fending for your life, you'd definitely want the biggest and baddest pitbull in your corner. But to attack an innocent child to destroy their testimony seems ridiculous. Exactly what does a child have in the way of life experience (except for the negative one that brought the case to trial)? How do you cross-examin a child that can barely read and write? Any aggressive defense action would be akin to verbal abuse. Most of the people responding to the rep's comments stated that although it is a given that the defense will try to get the accused to show a crack in their defenses, they agreed that using these tactics on a child would most certainly weigh heavily against the defendent and his attorney.

I would say that I'm more upset with the rep's explaination regarding a CHILD in this type of case. That's really all.

Thanks for the expanding my POV, Likwid.

I hope that no one ever has to go through this kind of experience, since it will not be easy.

[likwid]

I sail with a couple lawyers who've been in the system for quite a while, and they agreed, what he said was exactly on point for how a defense lawyer most likely would handle a death sentence case like this.

It really isn't that you're trying to destroy the kid, but get them double guessing their own words and thinking its their fault and they're lying, and if necessary make the kid less willing to show up to testify AGAIN at the NEXT appeal.

Sick system.