Posted on 05/01/2005 3:10:49 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
That was a common reaction to a column I wrote last Tuesday noting that growing numbers of Germantown High School students are showing up wearing T-shirts that say, "Free Catalano" - a stunt that, I opined, ought to have some serious consequences. Other than, that is, the consequences for the two girls alleging they were assaulted in the school.
James "Cat" Catalano, for those blissfully unaware, is the teacher recently charged with assaulting two high school juniors.
At least 10 students showed up in the shirts on at least three different days after he was briefly jailed and released on bond. All were admonished - though not disciplined - and the T-shirts were confiscated.
Lots of people wish they hadn't been - and not just readers wondering what's so wrong about showing support for a guy who hasn't been convicted.
"Obviously, I was not happy with the (column) because it infers that these students were being misled into supporting a teacher they like," said Catalano's attorney, Marty Kohler.
"There are students at this school who obviously support my client," he added, "and maybe they have an appreciation of who these girls are and who my client is."
"They have a right to express their feelings."
Kohler's point, I gather, is that these are unproved allegations and James Catalano has rights. So, for that matter, do the students who wore the T-shirts and may have thought they were firmly within the free speech ambit of the First Amendment.
Rights of juveniles in the closed environment of a high school, the thing is, aren't necessarily the same as rights of an adult elsewhere; and rights of expression never extend to harassment or possible hindrance of an ongoing criminal investigation.
The T-shirts pretty clearly weren't aimed at Catalano. Catalano wasn't there. They were a message to the rest of the school and, it would appear, to the alleged victims themselves.
As such, they were effective. One of the girls went home. The other didn't even show up, at least not the first day, perhaps because she more or less knew what she was in for: disbelief, disapproval and subtle, if not overt, ostracism.
Maybe James Catalano is innocent. But nobody - absent he and the girls - knows right now because the girls say they were assaulted in offices where no witnesses were present.
Putting on a T-shirt that says "Free Catalano" is another way of dismissing outright even the possibility they truly are victims of sexual assault. It is a way of telling them to shut up. It's not just offensive. It's intimidating. It's wrong.
Yes, James Catalano has rights, lots of them. He has a right to a trial and he has a right to the benefit of the doubt. But the girls, by simple virtue of the fact prosecutors think enough of them to bring charges, have rights as well. That is why a judge has ordered that Catalano have no contact with the alleged victims or other minors.
Victims, even those we only suspect may be victims, need to be protected until and unless they are proved to be otherwise.
Meanwhile, it's not just two girls who got a message this week. It's every single other child who may once have been the victim of something he or she is afraid to talk about and whom authorities - whether in this case or some other - would very much like to come forward.
The message: Don't you dare.
Nichols is absolutely right.
But the girls, by simple virtue of the fact prosecutors think enough of them to bring charges, have rights as well.
______________________________________________________
Actually no they don't beyond the rights they had before they made the allegations. They have rights to seek legal damages in civil court.
Beyond that they are witnesses. The action will be entitled The People v. The Accused. The victims of a crime, whether there was one here or not is unclear, may get some compensation from a pool, may have some statutory authority to receive information the rest of us can not get in a case, but they don't have any rights beyond those any other witness in a criminal case has.
I'm amazed there hasn't been a "Hey, Michael, Molest Me!" shirt designed for somewhat slight preadolescent boys. I am quite sure there are mothers out there who would proudly put them on their offspring and send them out in public.
It could mean "Free Catalano Because He's Innocent" or "Free Catalano Even If He's Guilty".
Kinda like the "Free OJ" signs.
Are you my new Best Friend? :)
Are you my new Best Friend? :)
_________________________________________
No, I did notice and think it a bit ironic that you posted the second thread I chose to comment on today. You will find, if you have not already, that posting threads will get lots of responses pinging you that are aimed more at the article than you specifically.
Actually, they do. There is a whole chapter in the Wisconsin Statutes on Victims Rights. Sec. 950.04 is quite comprehensive in the rights victims have.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/Victims_Rights/Chapter_950.asp
Having said that, I believe the students have a 1st Amendment right to wear the "Free Catalano" t-shirts.
Are you saying it goes beyond compesation from a vicitms complensation pool and the prosecutor being required to keep them informed?
I certainly allowed for statutory provisions in my first post. I doubt such a statute grants a Wisconsin victim any meaningful right like the right to compell the prosecutor to act on their allegation. I doubt a robbery victim in Wisconsin can say to the prosecutor, I think it was so and so and you must charge him whether you think you have the evidence or not.
The reason victims can not have much in the way of rights no matter what fancy language the legislature comes up with is that trials are often about whether or not they were a victim. Trials are often about whether the so called victims were defrauded or just greedy, whether they had their car stolen or loaned it out to someone and then got mad at them, etc.
Yes.
I certainly allowed for statutory provisions in my first post.
No, you did not, or I would not have replied to your original post which stated "Actually no they don't beyond the rights they had before they made the allegations. They have rights to seek legal damages in civil court."
And people wondered why kids in school are in favor of restricting constitutional rights.
Maybe outside of school but not at the school. Schools can and should determine what is in the best interest of discipline and learning when it comes to dress and behavior.
I gather this lawyer then, would not have a problem with students wearing T-shirts which said, "Let Catalano rot in Jail".
Or a T-Shirt which says, "Lawyers suck, especially Catalano's".
If you say so
Im sure he wouldnt like it of course but like these not much he could do
This is EXACTLY the type of speech the 1st Amendment protects. If this was a private school, you would be absolutely correct.
Too bad you did not read all of my original post or you would have notice that in my first post I said,[bold added]
"The victims of a crime, whether there was one here or not is unclear, may get some compensation from a pool, may have some statutory authority to receive information the rest of us can not get in a case, but they don't have any rights beyond those any other witness in a criminal case has. "
You may also have earned a degree from some institution of higher educations. Typically on a degree it say something like, "and all the rights and priveleges ...." Of course if you have such a degree you probably have figured out by now the rights conferred on you are basically nonexistent. You can say you earned a degree from the institution.
Oh yeah and like the legislature in Wisconsin granted some rights to victims you have the right to get junk mail solicitations from your alma mater. So as I said above, I allowed for some statutory rights of notification etc in my orignal post, your apology on that point is accepted, and I wonder if you can say Wisconsin offers those alledging they were a victim of a crime any serious right? Those would be rights before conviction which is what the author was claiming and I am doubting exist.
I'm pretty sure I'd think twice before I hired a lawyer who confused "infer" with "imply"
No, the First Ammendment was intended to protect political discourse. There is nothing that says that you should be able to do and say things in school that are not conducive to creating a good learning environment. Public schools can set limits on what you can and cannot say in school. The fact that many choose not to is just one of the many reasons that most public schools aren't worth a fraction of the tax dollars it takes to support the system.
Have you been in Wisconsin too long?
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.