laurell3
Posts: 6577
Joined: 5/5/2005 Status: offline
|
I don't think it's safe to assume that because this individual was acquitted, mostly due to a deadlocked jury that this isn't child abuse or assault. Jury nullification is alive and well in the US, and it appears to be what happened in this case. That is, it IS a crime, he probably should be convicted, but his attorney sways the jury to acquit anyway. It appears, from the limited amount of information that I could find, that his attorney argued this: In closing arguments, lawyer Loren Oakley of the county Public Defender's Office, who is representing Seamands, did not dispute that Seamands branded his children. Oakley compared the branding to circumcision. He said there was no evidence of criminal intent and claimed the boys were not "disfigured." "This is a case about different strokes for different folks," Oakley said. and apparently the jury bought it. In my personal opinion, the guy is one sick cookie, I'm not suggesting this is correct. I am merely saying case outcomes don't necessarily always turn on what is right or what the written law is.
_____________________________
I cannot be defined by moments in my life, but must be considered for by the entirety of my existence. When you fail to consider that I am the best judge for what is right for me, all of your opinions become suspect to me.
|