TexasCHLforum.com

This man was sentenced to 10 years probation for sexually assaulting a 2 year old. Of those 10 years he will only check in with his probation officer once a month for 6 months to 1 year. He will have to go to jail for 40 days or do 320 hours of community service. He also will not have to register as a sex offender. The mother claimed he had a "slight grin" when she confronted him. This is an injustice.

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local/ar ... 485256.php

ANY child molester, needs a 45 caliber hole right between the eyes period!

So the prosecutor got a plea bargain through because he was afraid the little kids would not be able to testify as they were the only witnesses. I guess that means there was also no evidence from a medical examination, but that wasn't mentioned.

Looks like they opted for a conviction with a lighter sentence rather than to go to court and risk a not guilty verdict. Maybe they had a weak case?

It is easy to get upset at this, but sometimes you have to settle for the lesser of two evils.
The WORST outcome would have been to go to court with no witnesses and circumstantial evidence and risk a jury having reasonable doubt, thus not finding him guilty. He would walk free with no conviction and no punishment at all.

Without full details of the evidence, witnesses, etc. the prosecutor had to work with, it is foolish to work yourself into a frenzy over this. Concerns, of course, but not all cases are perfect, and it is a matter of judgment and experience to decide when close enough will have to do.

I did not handle very many criminal cases; they never caught any of my clients but I did see several instances where prosecutors had to make a deal for lesser charges, in a few cases a lot lower charges, because the evidence was not there to make "beyond a reasonable doubt" a good bet. They know the defendant did something bad, so they don't want him to walk, but they don't quite have an air tight case. So, it's "Let's Make A Deal" time.

I believe it is poor practice to come to a firm conclusion about a case outcome unless you sat in the courtroom, saw what the jury saw and heard what the jury heard. You just don't... can't... get an accurate picture of all the details from news accounts, or partial reports.

I think its another good example of what happens when you've got a prison system that's already "full".. Had to keep the really bad ones.

cb1000rider wrote:I think its another good example of what happens when you've got a prison system that's already "full".. Had to keep the really bad ones.

What is worst than a person than a person who molest a 2 year old. Our judicial system as a whole is flaud. Nowadays a criminal has more rights than a law abiding person

JALLEN wrote:Without full details of the evidence, witnesses, etc. the prosecutor had to work with, it is foolish to work yourself into a frenzy over this. Concerns, of course, but not all cases are perfect, and it is a matter of judgment and experience to decide when close enough will have to do.

I did not handle very many criminal cases; they never caught any of my clients but I did see several instances where prosecutors had to make a deal for lesser charges, in a few cases a lot lower charges, because the evidence was not there to make "beyond a reasonable doubt" a good bet. They know the defendant did something bad, so they don't want him to walk, but they don't quite have an air tight case. So, it's "Let's Make A Deal" time.

I believe it is poor practice to come to a firm conclusion about a case outcome unless you sat in the courtroom, saw what the jury saw and heard what the jury heard. You just don't... can't... get an accurate picture of all the details from news accounts, or partial reports.

dlh

You cannot be absolutely certain about the guilt of another until all the facts are in.

Suppose, someone decided to hurt you by lying about your being a child molester.

What could be more devastating than that?

Just the accusation is dreadfully damning.

Never mind, guilt or innocence.

I don't recall the decade precisely, but I think sometime in the 80's a group of folks working in a child care center were accused of being child molesters.

Turned out they were innocent based on some bogus idea about repressed memories.

So, don't be too quick to assume guilt.

Abraham wrote:You cannot be absolutely certain about the guilt of another until all the facts are in.

Suppose, someone decided to hurt you by lying about your being a child molester.

What could be more devastating than that?

Just the accusation is dreadfully damning.

Never mind, guilt or innocence.

I don't recall the decade precisely, but I think sometime in the 80's a group of folks working in a child care center were accused of being child molesters.

Turned out they were innocent based on some bogus idea about repressed memories.

So, don't be too quick to assume guilt.

I understand what you mean but why would any innocent person admit to something they did not do? Especially something like that. I say he admitted it because he took the plea deal.

He should have admitted the facts of the charge he pled to, injury to a child, etc. nothing else.

Javier730 wrote: I understand what you mean but why would any innocent person admit to something they did not do? Especially something like that. I say he admitted it because he took the plea deal.

I don't think I would ever admit to guilt if I was innocent. But if the prosecutor was willing to recommend such a light sentence, there must be no credible witness and no evidence.

So you're sitting in your cell with the prosecutor after a few weeks not being able to make bail and the prosecutor gives you a choice: 320 hours of community service and you go home today or he's going to try to put you in prison for 25 years. Which do you choose?

maintenanceguy wrote:

Javier730 wrote: I understand what you mean but why would any innocent person admit to something they did not do? Especially something like that. I say he admitted it because he took the plea deal.

I don't think I would ever admit to guilt if I was innocent. But if the prosecutor was willing to recommend such a light sentence, there must be no credible witness and no evidence.

So you're sitting in your cell with the prosecutor after a few weeks not being able to make bail and the prosecutor gives you a choice: 320 hours of community service and you go home today or he's going to try to put you in prison for 25 years. Which do you choose?

I personally would not admit to something I did not do. Especially something like that. If someone would lie about something like that to do harm to anyone, they will probably do anything. Those kind of people probably hang around with people similar to them that will help them. One of those other people can make up a similar lie and then you have that to deal with. So what do you do then? Take another plea deal or go to trial with the prosecutor now having the fact that you took a plea deal on something similar as evidence against you? I would not admit to doing anything I did not do.

lildave40 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I think its another good example of what happens when you've got a prison system that's already "full".. Had to keep the really bad ones.

What is worst than a person than a person who molest a 2 year old. Our judicial system as a whole is flaud. Nowadays a criminal has more rights than a law abiding person

A person who is ready and willing to convict a person without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, that proof was lacking, incomplete, flawed, unavailable. If it were otherwise, the prosecutors would have been more than ready to put on the evidence and obtain a conviction.

Among the other factors heretofore unmentioned, is the lamentable practice of overcharging, where prosecutors charge the most serious offenses they can imagine knowing that, in hopes that, when plea bargaining time comes, the pressure upon the defendant will be maximized. It happens, especially in Federal Court where offenses tend to be more, ahhhh, esoteric.

Javier730,

My post was not directed towards the plea deal guy, but at those accused of anything before all the evidence/facts are in.

Once all the evidence is in, those found guilty of child molestation should serve time on Snake Island.