Subject:
|
Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:03:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
389 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> I believe our standards of evidence have in the past
> required more than just video evidence.
Ah, the light shines...
Yes, evidence is a sticky issue. And we did use to have other standards --
the manner in which we arrive at a hopefully objective approximation of the
"truth" is ever changing, however slowly. Sometimes the change is good,
other times it is not as good.
We use to have to main categories of crime: the felony and the misdemeanor.
With the advent of things like traffic violations being reduced from a form
of misdemeanor to a mere quasi-criminal "infraction" we began to dilute the
concept of what constituted a crime. At the same time, we began to dilute
what constituted proper evidence -- the less serious the penalty, the less
rigorous the evidence needed to prove the allegation, right? [I don't
actually agree with this, but reality is what it is...] Of course, some
accusations are very serious and we should be more mindful of the kind of
proof we require in those instances.
Any accusation of child abuse places one into deep, dark, legal waters.
The Child Abuse Central Index logs the names of persons accused of child
abuse. Apparently when a child abuse report is made, the name of the accused
is entered into the CACI data base. Should the accused ever apply for
anything requiring a background check their name will be flagged as a
suspected child abuser. I understand that having one's name removed from
this list can be fraught with hassles, horror stories of false accusations
abound. I think Frontline once did an episode on child abuse/false
accusations in the state of Florida -- I think the main point was that Janet
Reno, then State Attorney, had used the easy victories in child abuse cases
to bolster her political aspirations. So while some people move up the
political ladder, others have their lives forever destroyed by false
accusations -- sweet.
I think most people find the idea of child abuse very disturbing -- and who
can blame them? But clearly we shouldn't allow discomfort about a subject
to cloud or subvert the gathering of sufficient evidence to prove the crime
or of maintaining a careful standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I
want to protect our children, but not at the cost of sacrificing their parents.
Sort of as an aside here, I don't really believe in the idea behind the
CACI. If a person is not convicted of a crime, they should not have a mere
accusation trailing them for the rest of their life. If a person is
convicted, serves out their punishment, and is released -- justice has been
served. Denying them equal access to anything after they have paid their
debt seems a way to continue punishing them -- and if they must continue to
be punished maybe they shouldn't be free again in the first place. If they
should be free, then let freedom be freedom for real -- and not some false
freedom while we continue to punish them in a variety of ways.
Just my two bits...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
