4 years for raping a 4 year old girl, $5,000 "restitution"

[Dragonfighter]

Having some experience in this arena, I was and am constantly surprised by how much moral support the perpetrator receives and how much shunning the victims receive. There is something to be said for the punishment fitting the crime but that will never happen in our mamby pamby PC world.

Added in Edit: In our case we came across a book that was invaluable in understanding the dynamics and was a salve of sorts when we saw how the victims were being treated and the support the perp was getting.. I cannot remember the book and have not found it yet but when I do, I'll post it here.

[VMI77]

http://www.centralmaine.com/2014/11/04/ ... x-assault/

One of the most highly decorated police officers in Maine’s history was sentenced Tuesday to four years in prison for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old child.

Before he was arrested, Demers admitted to investigators to assaulting the child multiple times.

Depraved as this is, his attorney and "supporters" are almost as depraved themselves:

Demers’ attorney, Walter McKee, argued that his 74-year-old client has already been punished seriously since his arrest, with a ruined reputation and the heartache his actions have brought on his family.

The courtroom was filled with Demers’ family members and supporters, many of whom spoke on his behalf or submitted letters attesting to his exemplary character.

How depraved do you have to be to show up in court to support a child rapist? Well, sure your Honor, he sexually assaulted a 4 year old girl multiple times, but his character is exemplary. People go to jail for longer than this for just looking at at child porn.

It’s his attorney’s job to show up in court and get the sentence mitigated as much as possible.

I can’t speak to the motivations of the others you mention.

I don't agree that mitigating a sentence as much as possible is an attorney's job. I think the function of the defense attorney is to help ensure "justice" is done for the accused (where justice is either acquitting those who are innocent or seeing that the guilty receive punishment appropriate to the crime). It's not to get guilty defendants off without being punished or out of jail. In this particular case, the attorney essentially lied by claiming his client had already been seriously punished for his multiple offenses. If what he claimed is true then that punishment should be sufficient for ANYONE convicted of the same crime. If this attorney would make this same argument before the legislature to reduce the penalty for such a crime to "ruined reputation" and family "heartache" then he might merely be representing his client in good conscience. But is "ruined reputation" and family "heartache" an appropriate punishment for the crime his client committed? You think he really believes it is? If not, then he's lying, and seeking to have his client avoid the appropriate punishment for his crime, which is not "justice."

[Javier730]

I don't agree that mitigating a sentence as much as possible is an attorney's job. I think the function of the defense attorney is to help ensure "justice" is done for the accused (where justice is either acquitting those who are innocent or seeing that the guilty receive punishment appropriate to the crime). It's not to get guilty defendants off without being punished or out of jail.

Sadly, at least in this case, your mistaken. A defense attorneys job is to get their client acquitted of all charges on them whether they are guilty or innocent.

Here is a good example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_apIbmsUwU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VMI77]

I don't agree that mitigating a sentence as much as possible is an attorney's job. I think the function of the defense attorney is to help ensure "justice" is done for the accused (where justice is either acquitting those who are innocent or seeing that the guilty receive punishment appropriate to the crime). It's not to get guilty defendants off without being punished or out of jail.

Sadly, at least in this case, your mistaken. A defense attorneys job is to get their client acquitted of all charges on them whether they are guilty or innocent.

Here is a good example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_apIbmsUwU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think you're confusing what actually happens with what should happen. I was contesting the notion that attorneys are supposed to get guilty clients acquitted or light sentences that don't fit the crime. The system is supposed to dispense "justice." Justice basically means determining who is guilty and who is innocent of the charges they're on trial for (and sometimes whether the law itself is just), and administering an appropriate punishment to those who are guilty. It is justice for a guilty person to be set free when only when the court cannot determine his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That was not the case here. The fact that the system has been perverted into something different doesn't change what should happen.

The OJ case is not like this one. To those who thought the jury erred it is more like the Zimmerman trial where some also thought the jury erred. However, in both cases, the acquittal was based on the jury deciding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilt in the case of this guy who assaulted a 4 year old girl is not in question. It's the punishment that is being questioned. Yes, this is what a lot of attorneys do these days, make immoral and unethical arguments so clients they know are guilty can avoid the consequences of their actions, but that doesn't make it right, nor was the system intended to operate that way.