On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:02:04 -0700, running dogg wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:


"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was
more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging
him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply.
Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought
he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his
fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or
whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me
please.

B.H.



The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.

Yeah, but the legislators in Sacramento CHANGED THE LAW so that in child
molest cases previous allegations of behavior, even if unsubstantiated,
CAN be used against the defendant. I'm not sure why; I always figured
that if true the current charges could stand on their own, and the
public hates child molestors anyway so they usually are convicted.


Unfortunately, in our current hysterical, politically correct
society, all you have to do is invoke national security or child
safety and previously assumed civil liberties go out the window.

It used to be that your records were secure. Now all someone
as to do is assert that they want access "in connection with an
investigation into terrorism" (and you're not allowed to investigate
that claim) and they grt access with no meaningful judicial oversight.
And the WH wants this sneak-searching power expanded.

Similarly, there used to be statutes of limitations for crimes
involving children or other offenses, but they have been retroactively
revoked. It used to be that a person could be convicted and serve the
jail time assigned, then be released on the understanding that the
debt to society had been paid. No more -- they can be housed on jail
grounds on the basis that, time served notwithstanding, they were
still deemed to be "unrehabilitated". They can be tracked and hounded
out of any chance of starting a new life.

Mind you, I have no problem if society wants to establish new
rules for search and seizure or for penalties for lawbreaking, but
these should never, ever be imposed retroactively. There is a contract
which we make with society and it can only cause contempt for the
contract if it can be changed in ways which call previously understood
rules into question based on the law enforcement fad or public
hysteria of the day.