Wis. prosecutor: Teachers risk arrest over new sex-ed classes
link: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/wisconsin-da-says-teachers-face-arrest-over-new-sex-ed-classes/1
It is amazing how "off topic" the discussion becomes on these discussion boards. Most miss the entire point of the article being about a DA wanting to criminally charge a teacher for teaching approved subject matter. At the same time as we read commentary from the "general public" and see how opinion, prejudice and emotion effect one's thought process; the question I raise is how does this effect the ability to have a clear and unbiased jury in cases that involve such emotionally impacted cases involving sex related crimes or allegations? Remember that in many of these types of cases there is generally no physical or forensic evidence, no witnesses, no DNA to dispute and usually only the word of one against another. That being said, pure objectivity is crucial because case history has shown that many innocent persons have been wrongfully convicted under false allegations in jury trials because emotional decisions were made because evidence didn't exist. The Duke Lacrosse case is a perfect example of this. Having to defend against a totally fabricated set of allegations never prevented the prosecution from pursuing charges where it was impossible for evidence to ever exist.
As we look at these stories or cases surrounding these issues of prosecutor misconduct, improper plea deals or conviction by a biased jury panel, it is important to see from the comments that get posted how easy it is for this to happen. I will contend that if you place 100 people in a room and tell them that they are about to be chosen to review a sex related case, especially if it involves a child, that 98% will feel immediate disgust and assume guilt automatically without hearing one shred of fact. And most will find it difficult, if not impossible, to set aside those emotions to consider those facts. How then can one be assured of a fair and unbiased jury of their peers? I say it is impossible in this situation! I make that assessment from reading many articles and posts and then by analyzing the comments made as to the degree of natural prejudice of those on the outside looking in. There is no room for any assumptions when it comes to determining innocence or guilt. And in the case of this article, if we allow a prosecutor to criminally charge a teacher for educating in accordance to their job and an improved curriculum, then we again open a very dangerous door to more violations of our protections from an over-reaching government as provided by our constitution. Just some food for thought! JF
It is amazing how "off topic" the discussion becomes on these discussion boards. Most miss the entire point of the article being about a DA wanting to criminally charge a teacher for teaching approved subject matter. At the same time as we read commentary from the "general public" and see how opinion, prejudice and emotion effect one's thought process; the question I raise is how does this effect the ability to have a clear and unbiased jury in cases that involve such emotionally impacted cases involving sex related crimes or allegations? Remember that in many of these types of cases there is generally no physical or forensic evidence, no witnesses, no DNA to dispute and usually only the word of one against another. That being said, pure objectivity is crucial because case history has shown that many innocent persons have been wrongfully convicted under false allegations in jury trials because emotional decisions were made because evidence didn't exist. The Duke Lacrosse case is a perfect example of this. Having to defend against a totally fabricated set of allegations never prevented the prosecution from pursuing charges where it was impossible for evidence to ever exist.
As we look at these stories or cases surrounding these issues of prosecutor misconduct, improper plea deals or conviction by a biased jury panel, it is important to see from the comments that get posted how easy it is for this to happen. I will contend that if you place 100 people in a room and tell them that they are about to be chosen to review a sex related case, especially if it involves a child, that 98% will feel immediate disgust and assume guilt automatically without hearing one shred of fact. And most will find it difficult, if not impossible, to set aside those emotions to consider those facts. How then can one be assured of a fair and unbiased jury of their peers? I say it is impossible in this situation! I make that assessment from reading many articles and posts and then by analyzing the comments made as to the degree of natural prejudice of those on the outside looking in. There is no room for any assumptions when it comes to determining innocence or guilt. And in the case of this article, if we allow a prosecutor to criminally charge a teacher for educating in accordance to their job and an improved curriculum, then we again open a very dangerous door to more violations of our protections from an over-reaching government as provided by our constitution. Just some food for thought! JF
Comments
Post a Comment