Posted on 08/08/2005 7:54:50 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Unfortunately it is hard to tell when it comes to custody battles...some women have no problem using their child.
When a judge offers up a punishment that bad, they should serve the same sentence as the criminal, AFTER THEY'RE resentenced. This is unacceptable.
Guys usually come out on the wrong end ... a demented or really psycho woman who's out to get her ex would say anything and be believed ....
This judge decided the jury was wrong...so he came up with this ridiculous punishment. The judge should have set aside the verdict; he could have done this. However, barring this, he should have sentenced the guy appropriately. Why have juries at all if judges can just ignore their verdict?
Who knows what the truth is? Maybe the man was falsely accused in a custody battle and the court system sees him as a criminal because of it and will not consider any evidence that would exonerate him. Or maybe he is a child molester and the court is not even so much as slapping his wrist. Either case is possible in our confused, politically-correct legal system.
"Anytime you have a case that has a custody fight, by and large, we're going to have sexual assault allegations or indecency by one of the parties. Those are very difficult cases to prove in a court room."
Robert Thompson says he never sexually assaulted his 7 year old daughter and is not a sexual predator...
Meanwhile, in addition to the needlework, Thompson can't see his children for five years, while he is on probation. He must also register as a sex offender for life.
So the prosecutor basically knew that the charge was trumped up by a vindictive wife...but pursued it anyway...and the father loses contact with his kids for five years, and with his vindictive wife controlling the kids, he may never see them again during their childhoods. AND he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, which will severely limit his employment opportunities and he will be regarded with fear and contempt. Nice.
That is exactly what happened. Always remember boys and girls, you are guilty unless you manage to prove yourself innocent. Men who are fed up with their wives should take note: it doesn't have to be a flesh and blood relative, it could be a child of a close friend willing to go along.
I agree...this sounds wrong to me...the father looses contact with his children for 5 years...why can't he see them under supervised conditions? His children may not remember him after that long!
I know about the tricks an ex can play between the children and the other parent...my ex-husband tried it on my kids...and he is still trying to cause legal trouble for me! (his latest trump charges having been dropped just a week ago!)
This mans future has been thoroughly trashed now! I pray he finds a way to exonerate himself!
You and me both.....something here smells.
"Meanwhile, in addition to the needlework, Thompson can't see his children for five years, while he is on probation. He must also register as a sex offender for life."
Based on the penalties, it sounds like that "no contest" plea was closer to "guilty" than "not guilty", or even the old Scots "unproven".
Simmer down and rethink this. There was no jury. He pled no contest and the judge sentenced him. It was a very weak case that was almost dismissed. He only pled guilty on advice of his attorney who probably didn't want to pursue it either because the guy probably had little money to pay him.
In these kind of charges one is ALWAYS considered guilty and is forced to prove their innocence, which is impossible. Little or no evidence is required. The word of a co-erced child is sometimes all evidence that is required. Some children can weave an interesting story.
Yes, and the biggest problem is that the children suffer most of all. Not to mention the real criminals who evade the system and continue to harm children.
One medical/legal technical comment here. The article says "the medical report showed no evidence of assault" or words to that effect. People should understand that the medical evidence is not conclusive either way. It's possible to be assualted without having a normal exam. The other way round is argued by defense attorneys all the time - you know the old "broke her hymen on a bicycle seat" ploy.
Only point I'm making is that it's a piece of evidence but not a conclusive one and has to be considered in the whole context of the case.
meant to say possible to be assualted and still have a normal exam.
What you say may be factually accurate, but before I ever allow myself to be tainted with the title of "child molestor", I will submit to polygraphs (and any other form of truth detection the prosecutor may want to throw at me), I will bankrupt myself paying for my defense, I will always plead "not guilty", and I will go to jail as an innocent man before I ever plead "no contest" to something I could never do. The blackmail payments Jackson made to one of his victims is all the evidence I will ever need to "convict" him in my mind of child molestation. That's why Convict Thompson is just as guilty, and just as deserving of punishment, as if he had answered "guilty" to the charge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.