Replies

I don't advocate leaving kids out of the decision process. I advocate someone taking control of the situation and advocating for the kids. In this case, adults surely have more experience and exposing one's traumatized child in front of a gaggle of cameras for the world to see and identify is wrong. This decision should have been made on behalf of the minors. The parents could just as well have held the news conference and if the boys wanted they could have watched it on t.v. Their presence was not needed. I am still questioning why they would want to be there. They did not speak and I don't think they should have. The trial will be where the facts should be revealed.

I am glad I might have alerted you to what I see regarding the antics of the media and what is really newsworthy. In my opinion, the parents were wrong not to prosecute. All bullies should be prosecuted but the Internet has nothing to do with it.

Well you opened another can of worms when it comes to trial. I am of the opinion that all trials should be open to the public. ( Military trials aside for obvious reasons) After all, it is the People Versus _____ right? We forgo our right to self imposed justice for the rade that society as a whole will accomplish proper punishment. How can we be assured that is happening when we don't have access to a trial?

Kinda makes me wonder why the Smart offender is just 'unable' or 'unfit' to stand trial. If Saddam can stand trial, just about anyone can stand trial.

When it comes to clear evidence like a video,this is where the internet comes into play, why should prosecution be up to the individual? The law was broken and clear evidence of it is out there for all to see. It appears to me that when given this choice, some can define who is above prosecution for breaking it. It just doesn't sit well with me.