Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Son of Will
God dangit i love when someone comes along in a sappy-ass thread like this and exposes the truth.
He may be guilty for his crimes, but THE GIRLS aren't innocent. And if they were after money - it makes you wonder how legit the accusations were
You obviously didn't read through the thread because if you had, you would know that there is a huge difference between a civil judgment and a
criminal judgment. This guy was clearly treated according to a different standard than everyone else, even before he paid the girls any money.
Furthermore, whatever he paid the girls would have taken care of a civil judgment, not a criminal judgment.
Sure, he could have paid them to withdraw their testimony and they could have not wanted to go through a civil trial for much more money, but then
that would only point out that their ultimate goal wasn't money. Furthermore, if this was the case, then the prosecutor should have charged the guy
with bribery and tampering with the witnesses, which should have only gotten him in much more trouble with much more time/penalties.
Either way you look at it, the guy got special treatment and not only on a small scale, rather he got so much preferential treatment that he walked
because of it. This isn't even mentioning how he was treated while in custody.
It really wasn't up to the girls whether he was prosecuted or not, just as it isn't up to the family of a murder victim, whether or not the murderer
gets prosecuted. Much the same as a rape victim. If you raped a woman and the authorities find out about it, you are going to be charged with rape,
irregardless of whether the woman wants to press charges. Of course the woman can either say you didn't rape her or she could refuse to testify but
she has to make that decision on her own. If you help her with that decision, you are going to be charged with tampering with a witness (what ever
it's called in your state) and if you offer her any compensation for her refusal, you are going to be charged with bribery too. With children, it's
a little different because the child can't claim it was consensual as their is no such thing according to written law. A child is not deemed eligible
to give consent to having sex with an adult and often with a peer of her same age, if it's a girl. In many states, the age of consent between a boy
and a girl are different, but that's irrelevant as it pertains to this particular case.
In sum, he broke the law and wasn't held accountable because of his status, whether it was for having sex with the children or bribing them not to
testify, if that was the case. In either case, he should have been prosecuted and he wasn't.
Lets just say that you don't see anything wrong with a grown man having sex with children of that age (purely hypothetical), well that too is
irrelevant as it pertains to this thread, as this thread is about a double standard between the elite and the peons. I think we can all agree that the
average joe does get prosecuted for having sex with children, completely independent of whether we agree with the law or not. So if peons are held
accountable and the elite aren't, then that proves that there is a double standard.
[edit on 22-7-2010 by airspoon]