Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Innocent before proven quilty? Bullshit...In this world you have to prove you are not quilty before all else

I had to report to jury duty for the esteemed county of Dallas, Texas yesterday.
Since I was not picked to serve, I guess I can disclose what the case was about... Well the jist of what the case was about, since not all that much WAS disclosed to the 65 of us that were sent home.

This was a case involving an adult female; we were never told how old she actually was; and an underage child engaging in an inappropriate sexual encounter. Again, we were never told how old the child was or the sex of the child; but the defense attorney did let it "slip" that the defendant was a lesbian; which kinda narrowed it down. We were told that the "inappropriate encounter" involved the adult placing the child's hand on her genital area in an effort to get some kind of sexual pleasure for herself. We were told  also that the the "touching" was not forced in anyway.

Well during the jury nullification part of the whole "justice" system thing, the DA asked  questions to see which of us  77 residents of Dallas County would sway to his side. One of the questions was how do we feel about the sexual abuse of a child.
Well duh...How should any adult that has children feel about the sexual abuse of a child? Another question was, would we be swayed in anyway if we found out the child was lying about the whole thing. He reminded us of the law in Texas concerning child abuse and all before he allowed us to answer.

Well the question floated around the courtroom with several yes's and several no's, until it came to me.....

Me being me....I told the DA that of course kids (and adults) lie if they (we) feel that lying would get them (us) out of some kind of trouble. It is human nature. I told him that I would be less concerned about the child lying and more concerned about what the adult did to give the child reason to feel that they had to lie. I also asked the DA what was the motivation behind the reason the case was being brought before a criminal court since the only crime involved touching...Was it the fact the the two people were in a relationship that went left and the child felt jaded and wanted some get back, or did the child's parents find out and wanted some get back of their own... Well of course since I was not officially part of the jury yet the DA danced around the question.

When the defense attorney had his turn, the first thing he did was ask the room how many of us were either involved in Law enforcement or had someone close to us that were involved in law enforcement. It seems that he did not want anyone on the jury that had some kind of intimate knowledge of the law and dealing with shit like this. Well of course that excluded me since I work for the Texas Department of Public Safety, as well as several others in the room that had some kind of dealing with "the man". After that this asshole skipped right passed us whenever he asked the room a question. We were not included in the conversation at all. Whenever we had a question he would ignore us as if we were invisible. He also began the paint the child as a liar and a willing participate... albeit very slyly... He attacked the kids' character in a way that was not  actually said, but it was very well implied. Which pissed me off.

Now anything that involves a child hits a sore spot  with me as it should with any adult. But like I said earlier, I know that false accusations are levied against people on a regular basis. More often than the average person would believe. There are a lot of people locked up that were lied against. This is the main problem I have with lawyers using snitches as witnesses in criminal cases. But I believe that in this case,the main question for me was,what the hell was the "adult" doing with this child in the first place? Why would she allow herself to be put in a situation where her character was being questioned? And if there was a relationship, the "she looked old enough" defense does not hold water. Any adult knows that no matter how a person looks, if you spend enough time (more often than not just a couple of damn minutes should do the trick)you get some kinda hint about how old the individual is you are dealing with. I.E. What they talk about, what their maturity level is.

So I already came into this shit with a biased opinion. It would have taken a lot of passionate testimony from the defense to convince me that the "adult" was not in any fault at all.

So I guess it was a good move by the court to dismiss me. Besides this woman was facing up to 20 years..
For a touch.

No matter how I felt personally, I could not send anyone to prison for 20 years for a damn touch.

What say you?

3 comments:

Reggie said...

Well I'd need to know some more particulars, but regardless, I'd have a hard time sending anyone to jail for 20 years for touching someone or placing their hand on them. That's kinda stupid.

To me a child molester is worse than a murderer. Instead of killing, he perpetuates the acts that his victim will perform on others one day and their victims as well. A child molester is kinda like a vampire in that it starts somewhere and moves on like a virus.

Untouched Jewel said...

'This was a case involving an adult female; we were never told how old she actually was; and an underage child engaging in an inappropriate sexual encounter. Again, we were never told how old the child was or the sex of the child; but the defense attorney did let it "slip" that the defendant was a lesbian; which kinda narrowed it down. We were told that the "inappropriate encounter" involved the adult placing the child's hand on her genital area in an effort to get some kind of sexual pleasure for herself. We were told also that the the "touching" was not forced in anyway.'

Ok, first and foremost, any adult that ENCOURAGES a child to touch them in any way in my mind is considered FORCE, period. And where was this child's parents anyway when all of this was going down?! Somethin about how the scenario was described (regardless of age, etc.) sounds shady. I can see holes in the story somewhere, but none the less, that lady needs to do some kind of jail time and forever be registered as a sex offender. Whether or not this woman was gay or straight, she had no right having a child touch her in a place that gets men locked up for shit on the lines of rape.
And when you raised the question in your topic "Innocent before proven guilty?" In this case, I highly doubt it. This case screams automatic guilt, because 1: she was engaged in some sort of sexual conduct with a minor, and 2: it's statutory rape. Innocent my ass!
This defense attorney needs to go back to school and relearn the basics of law or constitutional rights, because how dare he want to make a CHILD every bit as much a culprit as an adult? Sure, as you stated children and adults lie at times for certain circumstances, but never does a child ever intentionally put themselves in compromising situations for the sake of doing some random shit. And the only way a child knows how to lie, is by learning from example (the adult).

THAT'S MY OPINION, AND I'M STICKIN TO IT! LOL.

Dirty Red said...

Reggie,
I agree with you 100%.

Untouched Jewel,
I see that the defense would have kicked both of us off this jury huh?