[Vn_survivor_67-68]

I can’t answer your questions. Here is a description of the original trial etc, composed by a liberal, nonetheless revealing.....

snip:
During the trial, in response to Wilson’s pointed questions about the propriety of prosecuting people for such conduct, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade said that he did not write the law, implying that he had no choice but to prosecute Wilson for aggravated child molestation. McDade said separately that Wilson should have taken a plea deal but that he failed to do so because he “has decided to become a martyr.”

These statements are remarkable in three respects. First, we should be quite disturbed to learn that a prosecutor, who has more discretion in carrying out his job than almost anyone else in the criminal justice system, is prepared to rely on the Nuremberg defense. Yes, a criminal statute literally applied to Wilson’s conduct, but the District Attorney has no obligation to enforce the law slavishly, when even he himself concedes that “[w]e don’t believe that a 10-year sentence is an appropriate punishment [in this case].”

Second, the notion that the decision to exercise one’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial - rather than waive that right by pleading guilty - is a deliberate choice of “martyrdom,” is positively offensive.

Third, McDade’s suggestion that it was Wilson’s responsibility to have taken a pleading option - literally, a confession in exchange for a more lenient punishment - is precisely the sort of “confess and convert” thinking that characterizes a theocratic justice system. It is perhaps no coincidence that the District Attorney chose the word “martyrdom” to describe Wilson’s ultimate punishment for refusing to say what he does not believe: that he did something terrible and deserves to be branded a “child molester” for life and punished for his sins.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070110.html

[burzum]

This prosecutor’s statements clearly describe exactly what I am worried about by those who worship the law. They always think they are doing the right thing no matter how many people they hurt.

[samtheman]

Second, the notion that the decision to exercise one’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial - rather than waive that right by pleading guilty - is a deliberate choice of “martyrdom,” is positively offensive.

Your whole post is excellent. I just wanted to highlight this.

It reminds me of those cases where DNA is used to free somebody who has been in prison for one or more decades and it turns out that at various times the prisoner (an innocent man) was asked to "show remorse" by confessing that he committed a crime he didn't commit and when he didn't, the "authorities" all clicked their tongues at his "failure to show remorse".

[TKDietz]

This is typical of prosecutors. If you get charged with a crime, you are supposed to shut up and plead. If not, you should get hammered at trial. This is not so much about deterring others from engaging in similar criminal conduct, it’s about deterring others from taking their cases to trial. If the prosecutors are able to get a really long prison sentence for a defendant at trial, they don’t let attorneys with clients with similar charges forget about that. They make crappy offers and tell the defense attorneys to tell their clients that if they don't like the offers they just need to think about what happened to “so and so” when he took his case with similar facts to trial. Sex case like this are a dime a dozen. They happen all the time. A lot are worked down to non sex crime misdemeanors, and a lot of these kids end up with felony records and have to register as sex offenders the rest of their lives. Too many end up in prison. At least where I practice law it pretty much just comes down to whatever the “victim’s” family wants. If they want the guy to get hammered, he’s going to get a really bad offer.