I can't believe that no one has made mention of the comments made on the house floor while debating the mandatory 20 year sentence for a child rapist in Mass.

I was shocked enough about the 17 or 18 teen girls, in the same class, at a single high school being pregnant in Mass. And then this hit the conservative air waves yesterday.

I have yet to see it addressed on any major new station other than FOX, anyone care to present a theory as to why no other news media has made mention of it?

What do you think about what this guy as to say regarding to cross examination of a
CHILD, who has been RAPED?

The video appears at the bottom of the page, you will need to scroll down to view it.

LiveLeak.com - Massachusetts Democrat to child rape victims: I will destroy you

I think that it should be for repeat offenders or over a certain age, because it is bad enough that some guys have sex offender on their record because their girlfriend was okay with the relationship and then when it went sour the girlfriend screams rape. I have even seen girls parents move a guy into their under age daughters bedroom and then when the parents wanted to they turned around and got them for rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I think that it should be for repeat offenders or over a certain age, because it is bad enough that some guys have sex offender on their record because their gf was okay with the relationship and then when it went sour the gf screams rape. I have even seen girls parents move a guy into their under age daughters bedroom and then when the parents wanted to they turned around and got them for rape.

---

This specific law would be applied to victims only under the age of 12 years old.

Did you listen to what this guy said?

That is what I am looking for opinions on, not the law being passed or not.

Oh. In that case I would say make it 13 or 14 yrs old

Hello Prog:

What do I think about what he said?

I think two things: 1) rape victims have been victimized a second time by the judicial system since rape was made a crime, and 2) in the unlikely event that I'd ever be charged with anything, I'd want HIM as my lawyer.

We COULD, however, talk about the bigger picture regarding ANY vigorous defense of ANY criminal defendant by ANY criminal defense attorney. If we did, mee theenks you'd object to THEM too.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Prog:

What do I think about what he said?

I think two things: 1) rape victims have been victimized a second time by the judicial system since rape was made a crime, and 2) in the unlikely event that I'd ever be charged with anything, I'd want HIM as my lawyer.

We COULD, however, talk about the bigger picture regarding ANY vigorous defense of ANY criminal defendant by ANY criminal defense attorney. If we did, mee theenks you'd object to THEM too.

excon

---

Surprise! No, I would not, as long as this "vigorous" defensive cross examination was not taking place with a child, who has been raped, who is under the age of 12 years old, and when the "intent" is to do that, not just to defend his client.

Seriously, when I hear this animal, talking about making sure that he completely and totally destroys the future of a child under the age of 12, who has been raped, I have to imagine my child, sitting there...

What I would like to post, would only be deleted, so it would not make any sense to continue.