![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kellinatorhttp://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/09/23/video.child.beating/index.html
"The woman caught on videotape repeatedly striking her 4-year-old daughter in the rear of a sport utility vehicle is due in court this afternoon. Despite admitting the beating and saying there was 'no excuse' for it, she's expected to plead not guilty to felony child battery charges."
Is the state of society so bad that this moron thinks she can admit to a heinous crime on NATIONAL FUCKING TELEVISION and STILL claim she is innocent in a court of law?
"The woman caught on videotape repeatedly striking her 4-year-old daughter in the rear of a sport utility vehicle is due in court this afternoon. Despite admitting the beating and saying there was 'no excuse' for it, she's expected to plead not guilty to felony child battery charges."
Is the state of society so bad that this moron thinks she can admit to a heinous crime on NATIONAL FUCKING TELEVISION and STILL claim she is innocent in a court of law?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
What a waste of time and money, and sense.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 10:29 am (UTC)shes saying that the charge against her is incorrect. that she does not agree that she should be brought to that charge, but probably a lesser one.
shes probably shooting for a misdemeanor.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 10:40 am (UTC)It was the DEV-ILL!!
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 10:43 am (UTC)we heard a sound bite of her protesting sending her child to foster parents, because "it was my fault, why punish her?!" exactly, lets not pusish the kid. give her to someone who WONT hit her for being a 4 year old.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 11:02 am (UTC)Pleading not guilty in a court of law is not equivalent of saying "I didn't do it," it's really "I am not guilty of this charge as it is defined by law"
For example, say you hit a person with your car and kill them, and it's totally an accident. You would pleadn not guilty to, say, 1st or 2nd degree murder, because technicly the crime would be vehihcular manslaughter.
On the surface it seems like the law is needlessly pedantic, but such distinctions maintain consistency in that simmilar crimes are treated in more simmilar ways, which supports fair trials.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 11:04 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-23 11:16 am (UTC)theres a reason law students spend so much time studying.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 11:18 am (UTC)i grew up to be a productive individual.
i hate that society has taken this "soft, safe, protecting" side and spoil kids rather than giving them a good spanking. parents have done it for years and most of us have turned out okay. suddenly we change that? blah whatever.
spare the rod, spoil the child. personality, im tired of whiny kids.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 11:20 am (UTC)again, she is saying she is not guilty of the charge they have given her. she never said she wasnt guilty of hitting the kid. in admitting she did wrong, she is saying that she did hit the kid.
she, more her lawyer, is shooting for a lesser charge for lesser time. this is why lawyers get big money.
Interesting how emotionalism can take hold
Date: 2002-09-23 11:31 am (UTC)There is no such thing as "pleading innocent"
She is quoted as saying her LAWYER told her to plead NOT GUILTY (which lawyers generally do) to charges of child FELONY BATTERY. Felony battery is a SERIOUS charge that implies irreversible damage and carries the stigma of felony conviction for LIFE. She gets convicted of that, what little lifestyle they have can be kissed goodbye forever.
Apparently the child had no marks on her (even if it was eight days after the event; a bruise that heals in eight days is not a bad bruise) and therefore, as wrong as her behavior was, it probably wasn't felony battery.
She herself is appalled at her own behavior, knows it was wrong and wants to learn how to better deal with the situation. What would make you feel better? If she killed herself from remorse?
Feel the sarcasm:
Date: 2002-09-23 11:36 am (UTC)YEAH! how DARE anyone claim persecution against those thieving gypsies!!!
We treat those scumbags as good as all the other scumbags in America!!!
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 11:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 12:10 pm (UTC)She was protesting that her daughter was not allowed to go to other family members. Instead the little girl is being sent to stay with people she doesn't know. Frankly I'd be pretty worried too... there is a long history of foster parents who abuse their charges.
Re:
Date: 2002-09-23 12:22 pm (UTC)Yes, I've done things I regret, as I imagine we all have. But punching a four-year-old in the face (which is what the video appears to show) is, I believe, beyond the pale. No matter what you think of spanking, no child should be punched in the face. It could cause serious damage.
Re: Interesting how emotionalism can take hold
Date: 2002-09-23 12:23 pm (UTC)Fair and impartial trials, and basis on British common law instead of Napoleonic Law are some of the foundations of the "american way of life" - They *are* important, and are some of the most major lines of defense in protecting our rights.
In the end, her guilt or innocence on this charge of felony battery should be decided by a court of law.
No matter what the world thinks of her parenting skills, or whether or not child protective services should step in, is a completely different matter.
She can admit publicly that she needs counseling and help learning parenting skills, etc. She can also, without any hypocracy, plead not guilty to commiting felony battery as defined by the law in this case. The two are entirely different questions.
This whole thing seems to be a really sad story, but denying her a fair trial would be an even wider reaching tragedy.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 12:32 pm (UTC)Foster care routenely spits out psychologically damaged children with no family or support structure, who get dropped out of the system at 18 with no future. Children outside of infancy have abysmal adoption rates.
If she can be taught to be a competent care giver, it is in the child's best interest to do so. but a criminal court's jurisdiction extends only to the scope of this incident.
pardon me
Date: 2002-09-23 12:32 pm (UTC)just because I'm willing to give her the sympathy only another parent can give; because I applaud her courage in admitting what she did was wrong and wanting help for herself??
I'm with
Re: Interesting how emotionalism can take hold
Date: 2002-09-23 12:35 pm (UTC)Re: pardon me
Date: 2002-09-23 12:46 pm (UTC)I admit freely that I don't have children and I don't know what kind of parent would be. Maybe I'd be worse. But that doesn't mean I can't recognize when a parent crosses the line.
Re: Interesting how emotionalism can take hold
Date: 2002-09-23 12:49 pm (UTC)As it's been said SEVERAL TIMES, it is her LAWYER who has plead her not-guilty and HER LAWYER is concerned about her getting a fair trial and HER LAWYER who probably wishes she'd shut up to the media. That is the JOB of a lawyer - like it or not.
As I noticed, she didn't say anything about getting a fair trial or whether she was framed or what-ever-other excuse many criminals come up with to mollify the media. She seems to be overly concerned with owning up to her behavior, admitting that she did wrong and correcting it. She is also concerned for her daughters well-being.
Holy cow!
Date: 2002-09-23 12:57 pm (UTC)It is hard to know what someone feels behind closed doors. I know that she said she was shocked when she saw the tape, that she wasn't aware, in the heat of the moment, how bad it was . . .
I know some people have a hard time being vulnerable in public and, under the advice of her lawyer, she is probably being told what to say and what not to say.
Re: pardon me
Date: 2002-09-23 12:57 pm (UTC)You don't know what she did before she was taken in, you only know what you've been told by the media. I'm sorry but when the media makes such a blatent emotionally appealing "mistake" as saying "pleading innocent" I'm going to be VERY suspicious.
No one is rushing to vindicate her, we are simply not ready to execute her until we've heard more. I am amazed that she has publicly admitting to being in the wrong, wanting to get help and describing her appalled reaction when seeing what she had done.
After this, I can begin to understand why people hide themselves and especially their mistakes... there's no pacifying some people.
What I am seeing more than anything is a country being appalingly manipulated by the media. I think what she did was wrong too... but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to a fair trial. It doesn't mean she can't mend her ways. It doesn't mean her daughter doesn't love her. It doesn't even mean she can't turn around and have a happy family. So far as I can see, this ONE incident doesn't even mean she's a horrible abusive parent. Maybe she is, and maybe she isn't... I'm not getting out the tar and feathers until I've seen evidence that goes beyond ONE incident that she admits to doing wrong.
Isn't there supposed to be something about "christian charity" and maybe "forgiveness with contrition" and oh yeah, how about "innocent until proven guilty"
...and I'm not even a christian
???
Re: Holy cow!
You realize I'm not out to get you (or anyone else I know), right?
Re: Holy cow!
Date: 2002-09-23 01:13 pm (UTC)I'll beat em up!!!
We may be disagreeing, or whatever, but I'd never call you those things!
Whoever called you that is WAY out of line...
Re: Interesting how emotionalism can take hold
Date: 2002-09-23 01:19 pm (UTC)And yes, I believe if a bruise heals completely in only eight days then it was not deep tissue damage. You disagree that's your right. You needn't be nasty about it.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 01:20 pm (UTC)it appears. believe 1/2 what you see. you cant see for certain if the girl is being popped on the ass or the face, so dont make it into something its not.
i think its real easy to point a finger and lecture others bout their child raising methods, especially when we have no kids of our own.
Re: pardon me
Date: 2002-09-23 01:21 pm (UTC)Re: Interesting how emotionalism can take hold
Date: 2002-09-23 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 02:43 pm (UTC)Is this a joke?
no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 02:46 pm (UTC)Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.
The headline bugged me too...but from a legal prospective, I realize
she *has* to plead not guilty to this just for...well, procedural reasons. Hence why her attorney calls it a formality. My best guess is they're currently researching the avaliable case law in order to find some precedent to establish this as a "crime of passion" (using that strictly in the common law sense) type of thing.
Criminal law is odd...its all statutory. Like...all of it. Thus, the case law can be make or break, esp. if its in your jurisdiction. My guess is they'll be plea bargaining because I highly doubt there is going to be ANY case law that would help her. (Kelli, you work in a law library! Use your westlaw password to reserach it ;-) ) Plea bargaining might give her visitation rights (at the least) and will be less of a charge on her record.
I understand why it all pisses you off though...I remember interning at the county court in undergrad and working on a case involving the rape of a 12 year old girl -- at school -- by her 14 year old boyfriend. He admitted to raping her, but it went down on his record as "attempted rape" because of the plea bargain. He got a 3 year sentence, at least 2 years shorter than what it would have been had he been convicted of rape. Plus, he doesn't have to list himself as a sex offender that way...fucked up, huh?
(then again he had an IQ of 72 so....well...there might have been another ground to pursue with that. but thats a WHOLE other issue of the law.)
Re: Interesting how emotionalism can take hold
Date: 2002-09-23 02:53 pm (UTC)Well, that can also work AGAINST them...
most juries are picked by both attorney's asking questions to weed down people they don't want (its called vois dire, or something to that affect). generally, a big number will be called, the court will pull 15 or so names out of a hat and the attorney's ask questions like "were you beaten as a child" "do you approve of capital punishment" and eliminate those that have a bias towards the other side. I once witnessed this for a stupid little tort case involving a relativly minor car accident. The questions they asked ranged from "have you ever been hurt in a car accident" to "how familar are you with that exact strech of road?"
so...i wouldn't neccesarily speak of media spin being a lawyer's job because in the vast majority of cases (and there are exceptions --::cough:: OJ! ::cough::) this isn't at all true.
Re:
Date: 2002-09-23 02:58 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-23 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-23 08:53 pm (UTC)I think you posted while I was writing
Date: 2002-09-24 05:03 am (UTC)Last time I checked my toes were fine.