The Willis Family: Rape Charges Part 2

[raised in rebellion]

Wikipedia has some pretty extensive info/links on the subject.

[Jellybean]

I'm interested by the concept of chemical castration as explained above, but I agree that getting past the knee-jerk reaction to the word 'castration' might be an issue. Perhaps it could be described differently. Medical urge inhibition, or something. 

Having said that, chemical castration as a term has also been used to sound like a harsh punishment in this thread, and using a softer term might not bring the same sense of satisfaction to the victims and others involved with the case. 

I can see a few potential problems with this treatment method, which I'll write about in a moment. I'm going to refer to the people being chemically castrated as 'offenders', even though I know that some people may choose this method of treatment for unwanted urges, without ever having acted on them.

If the treatment is a medication that has to be taken regularly in order to work, that places the burden onto the offender. If they don't want to take it because of side effects, because they like their sex drive, or for any other reason, then the treatment fails. If the offender has memory problems, intellectual disabilities, a chaotic lifestyle (eg addiction, homelessness, transient lifestyle), or certain psychiatric illnesses, that could also affect their ability to take the medication reliably. 

I wonder if there's a depot injection or subcutaneous implant, as there is for female contraceptives. [edit: Cyproterone acetate, which is used for this purpose in the UK, is available as a long acting injection, but must still be injected intramuscularly once a week. This is a lot of time commitment, and would be expensive in the US.]

Another issue is that some offenders have partners who want to stick with them and help them atone (if necessary) and recover. It seems a high price for them to pay - that they have to give up sex, though maybe that is a minor consideration...

[another edited addition: Who would pay for this treatment? If someone has been convicted by the courts, then maybe the justice system pays, but what about prevention? If someone has urges and would like to take medication to reduce the chance that they might act on those urges without ever having done so in the past, do they pay the medical costs? Should they?]

[RosyDaisy]

Fuck this noise! These monsters should be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives! Chemical castration isn't punishment enough!

[older than allosaurs]

The guy who defended Ted Bundy, and other notorious folks, has just published a memoir. This article is based on an interview with him, and I think it's relevant to a lot of the points in this discussion. He says he hopes he'll be remembered for helping to develop and legitimize the battered-woman defense.

http://features.crosscut.com/john-henry-browne-devils-advocate

I recently attended a civil trial that didn't directly involve our family, but its outcome definitely affected us. Though I was rooting against the plaintiff, who was suing the state over a parental rights issue, I did want his state-assigned lawyer to give it his best shot. The plaintiff is not a good guy, but he is a poster child for what happens when society ignores at-risk kids until they turn into criminal adults. He deserves as good representation as rich jerks get. And as a practical matter, inept or uninterested lawyers at the lower court level lead to overturned verdicts on appeal.

[Snarkle Motion]

31 minutes ago, RosyDaisy said:

Fuck this noise! These monsters should be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives! Chemical castration isn't punishment enough!

I understand your feelings but I feel like, as terrible may sound, that there are degrees of sexual offenses involving children. Like I don't think someone who has download child pornography should be locked up for life. And I think masturbating in front of a child is a crime but not quite the same as rape? It feels so yucky to say this but I think inappropriately grabbing a child or touching without penetration is completely horrible but not necessarily deserving of life in prison.

[raised in rebellion]

Cali has been doing it for 20 years, and 8 other states, as well. If I were a defense attorney I would definitely recommend this as part of a plea deal. That is a GIANT step to making a difference and stopping these crimes. I understand that people can't help who or what they are attracted to. But if you're in to kids or animals, well...that's just unacceptable in our culture. Because consent, consent, consent!!! It honestly seems the most humane and compassionate choice. 

[socalrules]

Every defendant deserves a great defense attorney. Yes, many defendants are guilty, but for some there may be mitigating circumstances (I.e. Battered spouses) and many are actually innocent. Everyday we hear another story of someone being released from prison after decades because DNA proved their innocence or it was shown that there was some type of corruption that lead to their conviction. How many innocent people have been executed? This is why organizations like the Innocence Project are so important. 

I don't doubt that for many of the innocent that have lost decades of their freedom, if not their life itself, people were out with the pitchforks and hatred convinced of their guilt and believing that they don't deserve the right to the proper defense they are entitled to. It's that right to a defense that is the only thing standing between freedom for those that are actually innocent and potential incarceration, if not death. 

Providing a defense is about making sure that the law is followed. It is on the prosecution, not the defense to prove that a defendant is guilty. That is their only job. If they don't do it, it's not the fault of the defense. 

[raised in rebellion]

@older than allosaurs That is a really great article. It shows the toll it takes on one's soul to defend monsters, when trying to remain a good person. It seems he spent many years escaping! Thank you for the link and brainfood. 

I didn't know the atty who established BWS as a legit defense was one in the same as Bundy's! Interesting ying/yang dynamic. I also commend his pro bono work for people facing the death penalty. Great find! 

[SilverBeach]

37 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

It feels so yucky to say this but I think inappropriately grabbing a child or touching without penetration is completely horrible but not necessarily deserving of life in prison.

As a victim of non-penetration child sexual abuse at the hands of my mother's second husband, I can tell you that the damage is done regardless. No gradation of sexual offenses against children especially by adults. 

[Snarkle Motion]

12 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

As a victim of non-penetration child sexual abuse at the hands of my mother's second husband, I can tell you that the damage is done regardless. No gradation of sexual offenses against children especially by adults. 

I never meant to imply it wasn't horrible for the victim. My thoughts were mostly for ability to rehabilitate child sex offenders that potentially some offenders may be more amenable to change depending on the offense but I may be wrong and don't want to come off as insensitive. 

[Foudeb]

Doesn't chemical castration get reversed by taking other stuff, including alcohol?

[Jellybean]

3 hours ago, RosyDaisy said:

Fuck this noise! These monsters should be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives! Chemical castration isn't punishment enough!

I apologise. I was interested in the logistics of chemical castration (whether there are issues with compliance, funding especially for those who haven't committed a crime, and efficacy), but it was insensitive to do that in this context, in which we're talking about the rape of a child by a grown man. I'm sorry to you @RosyDaisy and to anyone else who was hurt or triggered by my comments. I'd be very happy to discuss/apologise more specifically by pm if anyone has particular issues with what I said.

Once again, I'm really sorry

[DaisyD]

6 hours ago, justwatching said:

As with any profession, I think there are defense attorneys who are ethical, and those who aren't.

This! With special emphasis on the "as with any" cross section of the population really. I imagine there are lots of very ethical lawyers just doing their jobs. I also there are plenty of lawyers out there who got into it because they love to argue and want to win at any cost. I would reserve my own judgement on any individual until I knew which it was for them. (Or any number of combinations. My sister got into the law because she wants to make a difference and because she loves to argue.)

Hopefully we'll hear something soon on what happened in court. I know it was just the arraignment, but there should at least be a next court date.

[RosyDaisy]

@Jellybean my comment wasn't directed at you or anybody in particular. I just believe child molesters belong in prison for life. They should never be allowed in society.

[libriatrix]

10 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

This isn't really my area and it was about a decade ago that I took the class so keep this in mind. But I remember when I found out what chemical castration involves it seemed reasonable but that most people have a knee-jerk reaction to the word castration. 

Possibly also a knee-jerk response to it as cruel if the only context they know it from is that it used to be used to "cure" homosexuals. (What happened to Alan Turing.)

[anniebgood]

22 hours ago, Coy Koi said:

While it's true that children rarely lie about sexual assault, there are cases where they are manipulated by other adults to make false accusations, like the whole crazy daycare satanic sex abuse paranoia thing of the 1980s. Those kids weren't lying, they were confused. I once asked a probation officer who supervised sex offenders if she believed any of them were innocent, and she said yes, there was one she believed probably was. She believed the child's mother had manipulated the child to make the accusations. And probation officers are not too prone to thinking their clients are innocent and this one was no exception, so she was probably right. I hate that child victims' testimony has to be subject to any scrutiny, but unfortunately I don't think there's any other way that wouldn't be even worse.

But I understand how you feel too. Even though I know it has to be done, I sure as hell couldn't be the one to do it.

The McMartin trial in Manhattan Beach CA created enemies of neighbors, ruined lives, and ended up with people's reputations in ruins. It was a witch hunt that never had any hard evidence. Generations of beach kids went to that school and none had any memories of satanic sacrifices or ceremonies. It tore up Manhattan Beach and the repercussions still exist today. CPS was so eager to get some good press and District Attorney Ira Reiner decided his attention whoreness needed stroking. 6 years of trials, countless amounts of money, fake testimony from the supposed experts in child sexual abuse and there was not one guilty verdict. It all started with a mother whose ex-husband taught there and she said he abused their son. Not one shred of evidence proved it. 

It was close to home and lots of tears were shed. 

[snarkopolis]

On 9/22/2016 at 1:00 PM, Front Hugging Fiend said:

It's so shitty. I mean, I know this is how the system works, but god... at what cost to the victim? And how does a defense attorney sleep at night if they've knowingly been defending a guilty person?

One, it is our job to uphold and defend their Constitutional rights. Two, it doesn't matter of they did it if it cannot be proven according to the law. Three, we sleep just as well as the doctor who treated said accused, the mechanic who fixed their car, the family member who ate dinner with them and the coworker who sat next to them.

If a doctor saves the life of an accused serial killer no one says "You shouldn't have treated them" they say "Your job is to treat sick people, no matter who it is". Why is that lawyers whose JOB is to protect the rights of the accused are constantly asked how they can do it. Easy, we signed up for it. Part of the oath--uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States (for everybody not just those we "think" are innocent.

[livinginthelight]

33 minutes ago, anniebgood said:

The McMartin trial in Manhattan Beach CA created enemies of neighbors, ruined lives, and ended up with people's reputations in ruins. It was a witch hunt that never had any hard evidence. Generations of beach kids went to that school and none had any memories of satanic sacrifices or ceremonies. It tore up Manhattan Beach and the repercussions still exist today. CPS was so eager to get some good press and District Attorney Ira Reiner decided his attention whoreness needed stroking. 6 years of trials, countless amounts of money, fake testimony from the supposed experts in child sexual abuse and there was not one guilty verdict. It all started with a mother whose ex-husband taught there and she said he abused their son. Not one shred of evidence proved it. 

It was close to home and lots of tears were shed. 

Don't be too quick to dismiss the McMartin accusations. There is nothing to be gained by rehashing it all here, but some of us believe the accusers, and were very upset, saddened, and outraged at the innocent verdicts. That is all I will say on the subject.

[raised in rebellion]

@snarkopolis Do you truly believe that it doesn't matter if a a person is guilty, if it can't be proven? 

A major difference between attys and the other professions that you mentioned (especially in these types of cases) is that those people aren't justifying/defending heinous crimes at the expense of the victims. At least, that's where I'd have a really hard time of it. 

It definitely takes a special sort of person to be able to healthfully cope with defending pretty bad people. I guess you try to make sure the good outweighs the bad, like all of us. But, it seems a very hard road to me.

[AmazonGrace]

2 hours ago, snarkopolis said:

Two, it doesn't matter of they did it if it cannot be proven according to the law.

It does to the victim though...

I understand defence attorneys are a necessity in a society that is ruled by law and justice.

But I have to say I have a really hard time not detesting some defence attorneys in some cases that I have followed, who (in my opinion) made up really vile stories to attack the victim. 

 

So they were violated twice. First by the perp and then by the attorney.

[Front Hugging Fiend]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

It does to the victim though...

I understand defence attorneys are a necessity in a society that is ruled by law and justice.

But I have to say I have a really hard time not detesting some defence attorneys in some cases that I have followed, who (in my opinion) made up really vile stories to attack the victim. 

 

So they were violated twice. First by the perp and then by the attorney.

I'm with you. I understand the importance of defence attorneys, but I guess I just couldn't live with myself if I ever devoted all of my time and resources into helping a guilty person walk free. As a victim of sexual assault myself, I couldn't do it. Ever.

Perhaps I just have too hard a time separating my own values from someone else's. 

 

I respect defence attorneys and 99% of the work they do. I'm not judging the profession itself, @snarkopolis. Your response made it seem like I was directly attacking you. If you felt that way, I apologise. I wasn't. I believe most people in the profession are diligent, kind and decent people. It's just perplexing to me, that's all. 

Finding reasonable doubt is one thing, but I just personally find it extremely hard to believe that an attorney wouldn't be at least somewhat emotionally conflicted over their day if they succeeded in getting a known rapist off the hook. That doesn't make them a bad person or someone to judge harshly or look someone to look down on. It's just a foreign concept to me, that's all. 

[Palimpsest]

9 hours ago, anniebgood said:

The McMartin trial in Manhattan Beach CA created enemies of neighbors, ruined lives, and ended up with people's reputations in ruins. It was a witch hunt that never had any hard evidence. Generations of beach kids went to that school and none had any memories of satanic sacrifices or ceremonies. It tore up Manhattan Beach and the repercussions still exist today. CPS was so eager to get some good press and District Attorney Ira Reiner decided his attention whoreness needed stroking. 6 years of trials, countless amounts of money, fake testimony from the supposed experts in child sexual abuse and there was not one guilty verdict. It all started with a mother whose ex-husband taught there and she said he abused their son. Not one shred of evidence proved it. 

It was close to home and lots of tears were shed. 

Ah, the Day Care scandals and witch hunts of the 1980s and the criticism of forensic interviewing techniques used with (alleged) victims.  There was also the Fells Acres case in MA - and I think the Amiraults were guilty as sin.  Their sentences were not revoked.

In the McMartin case focus your ire on the DA, police and the Children's Institute, Inc., not on Child Protective Services.   The Children's Institute, Inc. was contracted to conduct the interviews, and developed and used the techniques in forensic interviewing that were later found to cause false accusations.  

CPS gets a lot of criticism (and some of it may be valid), but its a bit unfair to accuse it of eagerness for good press when it wasn't involved.  The system is overloaded and underfunded, and stretched to the limit.

To clarify:  the primary purpose of CPS (according to the Statute) is to investigate cases where the abuser is a parent, family member or a person lives in or frequently visits the child's residence.  Depending on the state, CPS *may* have the authority to investigate cases where the perpetrators are teachers/day care workers.  In my state those cases are turned over to LE and are not in CPS jurisdiction.

Sorry to derail.  Back to topic now.

[SweetLaurel]

Okay - topic.     I'm curious, if anyone knows.    If Toby is sitting in jail with some kind of order that says he can't contact the family - can they contact him legally?  Or does it work both ways?    Thank heavens I don't know about these kinds of things.    What if one of the boys or someone wants to go say 'WTH Dad' or just check on him or something?   Are they allowed?   

 Oh editing - to ask - a few of them are over 18/21 - would that matter in a 'can't contact the kids' or was it an all encompassing 'family' order?   Could his cousin come see him?  (if he had one?)  

[Fascinated]

12 hours ago, raised in rebellion said:

@snarkopolis Do you truly believe that it doesn't matter if a a person is guilty, if it can't be proven? 

 

As a matter of law it CANNOT matter. If a defendant is not proven guilty, how can you justify declaring them as such?  It is why we have trials.  Heaven help us all if we can be found guilty of a crime without sufficient proof. 

[livinginthelight]

Did anyone here love the 80/90s show LA Law as much as I did?

I remember a similar discussion about the role of defense attorneys on that show. Veronica Hamel's character (the public defender) explained that it was less a matter of how you felt about the defendant, and more a matter of trust in the system. In other words, you focus on the system while giving your scumbag defendant your best defense. If you bring your best game, the other attorneys have to bring theirs. If all players in the trial do their job well, the overall level of the functioning of the legal system is raised. Some scumbags get off, but we really do want a top-notch system because it will be fair to the most people.

I liked this explanation and it stuck with me.