I-Team 10 investigation: Steuben D.A.'s office admits "flawed" handling of child sex abuse case

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S1563631.shtml?cat=565

I'm sure the general public sees the newscast only from the perspective of an angry mother making an issue that the DA didn't twist the lack of evidence by pushing forward anyways by building or fabricating statements and making a highly emotional case to be tried in the public forum. It was clear, according to this article, that the DA didn't have enough hard evidence for a felony case...period. No Grand Jury to ensure an indictment either. To me, that is a sign of ethical responsibility of purely seeking justice. I know nothing about the circumstances surrounding the case and whether this guy did or didn't do anything, but it appears, in my opinion, that DA Tunney kept his ethical promise of "better to free 10 guilty than ever convict one that is innocent". Whether public opinion agrees with him or not, he did the right thing if he truly didn't have enough corroborating evidence and facts to support the felony charges this guy was arrested for. It appears, at least in this case, that Steuben County is not putting conviction stats ahead of it's responsibility of seeking justice.

The tough issue surrounding these types of cases are all the attached emotions. The problem becomes that the emotional intensity can cloud the facts or the lack thereof.  Too many times, the prejudice and bias extends beyond the alleged victim and family to the investigators, CPS and the prosecutor's office. All want to put a predator away before they even have any corroborating fact or evidence to support the claims of abuse. And if the prosecutor's office is clouded by conviction stats or keeping the image of being politically correct, especially in these controversial and difficult cases, it becomes too easy to build upon the emotional aspects than the factual aspects of the case that can lead to a "feel good" conviction. A feel good conviction is one that convicts someone not based in fact, but rather by the emotional value that allows those that sit in judgment to sleep better at night and that they took no chances in letting a potential predator go free. That apparently holds a higher moral value than the worry of convicting an innocent person and throwing their presumption of innocence out the window.

An interesting quote from the article:

Lisa said, "You go to these people and that's why they have their positions because they're supposed to be advocating for the victim and it seems like everything has been the complete opposite."

Are they not supposed to be advocating for justice and the truth that ultimately protects the true victim, no matter which side of the fence the real victim is on? There has to be more than the word of one person against another to substantiate claims of sexual abuse. Statistically, men fall victim to false allegations than women. That being the case, then every single dad with a vindictive ex-wife should never rest easy. Any man having casual sexual contact with a "stranger" has to be concerned with potential allegations of rape, even though it was consensual at the time. And any teenager engaging in "sexual exploration or curiosity" may become victimized by allegations of sexual contact or forcible touching. Yes, in a society where sex sells, is displayed openly in programming and music and in the clothes we wear, you can easily become a sex offender by someone simply saying that you are. And in many cases, unlike what is told above, the legal system will do everything in it's power to prosecute you, send you to prison and forever label you a sex offender...all with the blessings of society.
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Politically Above the Law

America is doomed if you accept this conclusion from the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton. What you should accept is the evidentiary findings from this investigation, because the evidence that was found and presented does not support the conclusion. The FBI’s notion of “intent” and the actions of a “reasonable person” in her position are clearly supported by the evidence found. In other words, why would anyone in a governmental position such as Secretary of State, ever use any form of unsecured communication regarding ANY sensitive information regardless of its classification? The fact is she used not just one, but several personal servers to communicate and store any governmental information, when policy and security prohibits such communications. The willful act to ignore these policies only raises question of the underlying intent of doing so. Such actions are “grossly negligent” because the risk of harm, intrusion and security is extensive op...
Read more

The Science of Bias

--> I have been following Dr. Dror since the airing of “ The Real CSI ” on Frontline back in April 2012. Since then he has published many additional articles relating to the subject of Cognitive Bias and how it plays in the handling of forensic evidence and those that are “experts” in those fields. In a recent article in the Irish Times, “ Why forensic evidence may not be as certain as we’d like to think it is ”, Dr. Dror writes more about how bias can play a role in the field of forensic testing and analysis and how it can affect expert testimony in the courts. It certainly does raise the question to how valid or accurate expert analysis and testimony truly is. A concern that I have had and have corresponded with Dr. Dror about, is the natural bias or prejudice that exists with us all, especially when we are called to serve as jurors, the evaluators’ of the facts and evidence during criminal trials. It is my belief that a person’s natural prejudice, based upon thei...
Read more

The Fruit Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree...Or Does It?

Do you ever wonder what makes our views so different from others around us? I mean we seem to hold the same principles and core beliefs, but yet we differ in so many other ways. Is it the way we grew up or was it the environment we found ourselves surrounded by? There must be something that makes us take such polar opposite views on many things and yet unites us on others. Lets just take a moment and reflect upon our upbringing. Did the parenting skills and practices our parents had with us and how it molds our future? I don't think that one is more right than the other and most certainly, the environment we were raised in doesn't necessarily shape our future, I suppose, unless you let it. Let's examine this a little further... Parent A: Good hard working people with good moral beliefs. They have a love and respect for family and friends and teaches their children to have the same. They provide all the necessary tools for education and responsibility. They want nothing ...
Read more