You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
The purpose of the law should be to get at the truth. Period. There usually are constitutional safeguards to permit someone charged with a criminal offense to gather enough evidence to defend. Not in child sexual assault, though. Too many people are convicted (and now suffer what is comparable to a life sentence) solely on the say-so of some complainant, without one shred of corroborating evidence, and without the ability to reach, much less show the jury, the whole truth. Kids don't always tell the truth for all the same reasons adults lie, and for additional reasons that they feel compelled to stick with the lie for the attention of, and to please those they feel they are dependent on. If there is evidence in her medical records that show there was no contact, that is a pretty major piece of truth. The safeguard to the complainant is that the judge gets to review the records "in camera" by himself or herself first, then cut out all the stuff that has no material value to proving the truth of the matter at hand, and give the defense only that evidence that is material to proving the truth. Unfortunately, it takes a billionare defendant to bring the constitutional imbalance to a higher court. It's all fun and games to the pitchfork and torches crew, until your husband or son or brother gets accused out of the blue. Don't fall for a minute for the naive notion that you are safe because you didn't do anything and that the truth will set you free. It won't, and now because of the level of hysteria, there is even less chance for your ability to even get at the truth, much less prove it.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
Poll: What's your go-to topic for small talk?
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks