We Offer Deals to People Who Assault 8yr Olds?

Oh I see... He's a Politician! They are allowed to be pervs!

Published on August 27, 2004 By greywar In Current Events

In a fine tradition stretching back through such august politicos as Bob Packwood (hat tip to singrdave), President Clinton, a

In a fine tradition stretching back through such august politicos as Bob Packwood (hat tip to singrdave), President Clinton, and Gary Hart; Connecticut Representative Jefferson Davis has been found to be a reprehensible sex freak. Money quotes:

Davis' plea came under the Alford Doctrine: He does not admit guilt but concedes the state has enough evidence to find him guilty.

According to allegations read in court, prosecutors said Davis admitted masturbating in front of the child, exposing himself and teaching the boy how to masturbate.

Defense attorney Hubert Santos said Davis was not guilty but added, "There may have been mistakes in judgment here."

Why didn’t this go to trial?

"The risk of going to trial on these charges is very dangerous," Santos said.

Oh.

Davis said in his statement the day was "one more crushing blow to my idealism and optimism."

Apparently his “ideals” and NAMBLA’S are roughly the same. Such a shame to crush it. I guess he was also “optimistic” that he would get away with it completely.

Why this piece of spewtum isn’t being hung by his cock until dead alongside pedophile priests in the fucking town square on national TV is beyond me.

Credit AP for original article. Edit : Darth Misha also covered this before me, oh well I should read his stuff more often I suppose.

Comments

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 27, 2004

I'm addressing this from the experience of having gone through this on the other side of the fence.

The reason they negotiate many of these deals is that current law says the accused has a right to confront their accuser. As no age minimum is put to this law, this means it is not uncommon for an 8 year old child to be forced to sit in the witness stand facing the accused at a distance of about 20 feet. This is extremely traumatic for the child, and it plays into the perpetator's hands of giving them the supreme sadistic satisfaction of getting to watch the accuser relive the incident right in front of them. In essence, it makes the accuser a victim twice.

Many parents do not wish their children to have to go through that trauma; it is common practice for a defense attorney to use fairly aggressive cross examination techniques (although not enough to appear a bully and sway a jury against them), in order to cast doubt on the victim's story. Parents who do not know this quickly discover this fact in support group meetings with other parents who have been through the same thing, and they are more than eager to jump at a plea deal that's brought before them.

It's sad, but in many ways, the guilty truly do have more rights than the innocent.

greywar

on Aug 27, 2004

The kid is twelve today but I understand your point. My point is that there is no need to confront your accuser if you have admitted the crime and the state is the accuser.

Shovelheat

on Aug 27, 2004

We have a question in the jail I work at when someone ask how much time they could possibly get: "That depends" we say. "How much justice can you afford?"

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 27, 2004

The kid is twelve today but I understand your point. My point is that there is no need to confront your accuser if you have admitted the crime and the state is the accuser.

They would still force the kid to testify in front of him.

greywar

on Aug 27, 2004

They would still force the kid to testify in front of him.

I know, I don't dispute that bit, my deal is that if the State can act as a plaintiff in some cases then it should be allowed the expanded power to act as the accuser in this case. With the state as the accuser and the defdant's own confession he would have the right to confront only the state as his accuser. Any testimony from the boy could be garnered by way of affadavit or video statement under cover of anonymity. This is not the law, but it ought to be.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 27, 2004

This is not the law, but it ought to be.

I agree it ought to be for exactly the reasons I cited. Making the victims relive their nightmare (especially knowing that it often feeds the sadistic pleasure of the perpetrator), is cruel and unusual to the VICTIM.

For the record, I also have no problem with hanging them by their wangs in the public square.

messybuu

on Aug 27, 2004

That's horrible. I do hope that justice is upheld some other way. He'd definitely better not be reelected.

SSG Geezer

on Aug 27, 2004

If it was my kid I don't think there would be any trial except possibly mine. (If I screwed up)

trina_p

on Aug 27, 2004

I got the option to have a screen - I was almost thirteen when I testified -- they usually don't let you have a screen when you're over the age of 12

I had a screen for the commital hearing and we won andI didn't have a screen for the trial - with the jury and we lost -- besides other factors
I don't know about the defence not bullying the child -- I certainly felt bullied -- I couldn't articulate anything I wanted to cry but I had to be strong - I felt like the cross examiner was pulling apart everything I said.

My parents opted not to make my sister (who is 5 years younger then me so she would have been 8 when she made her statement) go to court - it would have been a separate issue -- We know of at least 5 people who this same person did things too -- two people took it to court and the other 3 have stayed quiet -- One case was dropped before it got to trial because she was the daughter of a policeman and the other was mine -- Not Guilty

I have seen the man twice since -- both times I've been scared out of my brain he'd recognise me -- both time were just public places out on the street (he's my mother brother) I've avoided every family event on my mother-side for the last 6 years (including my Nana's funeral and my grandfathers second wedding)

I'm 21 now, my sister is 16 and the other 2 girls are 24 and 33 -- he'd be about 35

The Crusaders

on Aug 27, 2004

Do our kids need more education on how to protect themselves? As a parent, once a child starts school and activities, we cannot be there to protect them 24/7. We need to arm them against these people by informing and empowering them. We cannot hope they wont come into contact with these people who prey on innocence as they are everywhere.
Kids are like a blank canvas and the entire world is the artist. They don't know how the world works but as each brushstroke marks their canvas they learn and it forms who they are. And this is what paedofiles use to their advantage. If the child has not be pre warned he or she does not know it is wrong and does not know how to react....but if you teach them they will know and they wont let it happen to them.....if they can. We must empower our children with knowledge.
What a heavy subject....

Trina p,
I am so sorry you went through such an experience....my heart goes out to you.......can you correct me if I'm wrong....is it a matter of educating and empowering kids....if you had been told that no one.....not even family member can do such things to you would that have enabled you to avoid your experience.....?

Spc Nobody Special

on Aug 27, 2004

"Davis said in his statement the day was "one more crushing blow to my idealism and optimism." He said he had to make a choice to fight to preserve his innocence or protect his freedom to continue to make life better in Connecticut."

Like perhaps by committing suicide? I'd be glad to help.

If it was my kid I don't think there would be any trial except possibly mine. (If I screwed up)

I'm with geezer on this one.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 27, 2004

I got the option to have a screen - I was almost thirteen when I testified -- they usually don't let you have a screen when you're over the age of 12

I don't know of any cases where they allow screens in the US. On a few occasions, taped depositions have been allowed, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 27, 2004

We have to be careful, however, not to create children who jump at every noise.

Sadly, though, the truth is, the vast majority of victims of child sexual abuse know the perpetrator. The parents have let them into the house, and given them a position of trust. It is the trust that the parents have given them that often causes these children to let their guard down. I submit, then, that it is the PARENTS who need the education -- or in some cases, a smack upside the head for giving too much power to the predator.

In the case of my brothers and sister and I, it was a matter that is also all too common--the predator married my mother because his prey was right there in the house with him. At the close of his trial, he told her as much.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!