The Practice - child molester "not guilty&...

by jack2 17 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  jack2

  Did anyone else see last night's airing of The Practice?

  The firm defended a guy accused of repeated molesting a teen-age boy. The guy even admitted to his lawyers that he did it. The lawyers defended him sucessfully mainly on two points:

  1. They mentioned that the boy was the only witness to the deed.

  2. They attacked the boy's credibilty - he did have some history of lying and of cheating on school tests.

  However, in this case, the boy was telling the truth. The jury verdict was interesting. They said "though there is a strong possibility of guilt, we find the defendant not guilty".

  As I mentioned, the guy did admit to it, so anyone watching the show knew he was guilty.

  Any thoughts on the episode?

  My thinking was that they were obviously able to put questions in the mind of the jury about the boy's credibilty. Though 'one witness' was also hammered home by the defense, it appeared that it was the boy's questionable credibilty that did him in. However, I did think it was interesting that the 'one witness' argument was presented.
• 

  RubyTuesday

  The justice system has very little justice. Does'nt matter anymore if your guilty or not...just if you have slick lawyers.
• 

  Francois

  Slick lawyers? Is there any other kind?
• 

  CBeMe

  I only have one question. If he had confessed he guilt to his lawyers, how could they defend him? Don't they have any personal morals?

  CBeMe
• 

  TresHappy

  I saw that and was floored the way they wrote the script. I am getting fed up with the writing of "The Practice", this season has just about done it for me. That other story going on about the goat sacrifice, I mean this show is getting too much...David E. Kelley can you hear me?
• 

  jack2

  CB,

  The lead defense attorney went to the judge and expressed deep reservations about defending the guy. However, the judge mentioned that the accused is entitled to a defense.

  Why they took the case to begin with, I'm not sure. Made for good TV, I guess.

  Tres, as for David E. Kelly, at least he got some comeuppance recently - his creation "girl's club" (yes folks, all lower case letters) was cancelled after just two episodes. I guess people didn't find the lives and, oh, yeah, the work, of three babe attorneys to be compelling TV.

  Edited by - jack2 on 18 November 2002 12:53:28
• 

  Mulan

  The more I see this show, the more I think there has to be someone on their writing staff that is either a JW or an ex JW. Or maybe it's just someone who reads this board.

  The one witness thing was too eerie to me. My husband and I both saw that immediately. What wasn't said is that "there needs to be two witnesses." That is a valid point, to protect false accusations from ruining someone's life, but this guy was guilty and a real scum.

  It was well done, how the attorneys didn't want to defend this man. But they were judge appointed to do so, and couldn't get out of it. They are bound by laws too, and he was on the edge in his closing comments.
• 

  maxwell

  I saw the first part of the episode and didn't watch to the finish. But it is sick that sometimes bad people get off in the US justice system and I would suspect in any justice system. The US justice system has many checks to protect the innocent. For example the presumption of innocence, the requirement for competent legal representation, the requirement for the prosecution to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. I think back to the OJ Simpson case. I think almost everyone in this country believes he was guilty. I believe he was guilty. But did the defense raise reasonable doubt. I think they did. So technically he gets off. There's plety of other technicalities criminals can get off on. Unfortunately no justice system is perfect. Ours tends to err most often in the criminal's favor in order to protect the innocent. Sometimes our justice system errs the other way and convicts someone innocent, but I don't think that happens as often as the other way around. I think the question is would we rather have the laws changed to err more often to the innocent's detriment.
• 

  Valis

  What is that old saying about its better to let 10 guilty free than imprison one innocent? Something like that. I saw the episode and would imagine that these scenarios get replayed in court all the time, much to the dismay of prosecutors indeed. However, in the episode you could see that Bobby Donald was having a moral dilemma and asked the judge several times just how crappy he could present the case. The judge told him he would do no such thing and in fact he was chosen for the trial becuase he would do a good job. One cannot find fault in the tacttics of a defense attorney who is bound to serve the court and their client regardless of guilt or innocence. If lawyers decided who was or was not guilty before going to trial, there would be no such thing as the right to a fair trial.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  Iwasyoungonce

  Mulan-I agree with you something is just wrong in "The Practice" Scripts. They are clearly very anti Catholic. They are really over the top in my opinion. And they just always seem to pulg the "You know what" about the "You know who." It is kinda creepy. I guess if I believed all the garbage that the doctrine and dogma demands maybe I would find validation in it. (Does the WTBS own a bunch of ABC/Disney stock?)

  If on TV they say that more than the one witness is needed; Well, if you remember the criminal had a history of committing this crime. Why did that not come out. Was there an agenda to the plot? He admitted to the crime. Irrelevent? Why was the prior criminal history only a passing thought? (I guess he was forgiven.)

  I plan to write in and ask what the hell they are getting at. I may just stop watching the show. But it is hard to say that because so little is known about the WT loonie toons that any talk is better than none. In "The Practice" episodes about the blood transfusion she just got lost in the hospital and magicly all was better. In reality when people need a blood transfusion and refuse often...They die. My wife was talking to a Dr. a few weeks ago and he said a jw just needlessly died in our local hospital because of refusing to take a transfusion. The medical staff just had to watch this person slowly die. It is so sad how stupid these people are.

  And I know that some of you are still jw's in either heart or mind, or in standing and yes I mean you. I know that some of you have family that are jw and yes I mean them. They are stupid. And if more of us were crystal clear on that to ourselves and our jw relatives maybe more lives would be saved. The Jehovah Witnesses are stupid people with stupid beliefs that get people killed for no reason accept stupidity. If it makes me look stupid to say this...Well if just one person hears me and says It's true all that is just dumb. And I am not going to serve or die for stupidity's sake. My pride is not worth my life or the life of my children; And, then accepts modern medicine and gets to see their children and grandchildren grow up. If JW's who face this rape issue then God willing they will not turn to stupid men with zero training and zero intention of dealing with this issue. Instead they go directly to the police and get real help from real people, then I gladly accept the label as stupid or whatever.