Originally Posted by Skippymjp
He's offered an explanation to his hometown newspaper in his home district. But I can't tell if he's being honest, or just "back peddling" 'cause he knows he really stepped in it this time.
He's "troubled" because people thinks when he says "I", that he's talking about himself The Taunton Gazette
Hmmmh. So many legal experts now object to the mandatory minimum sentences imposed on drug offenders since the 1980s that I have to wonder how much experience this guy has had with them. I have to give him the "benefit of the doubt", actually, in this matter, meaning I think he has a point, although he didn't express it in a p.c. manner.
The more drastic the possible sentence, the more aggressive the public defender/defense attorney, and therefore the more traumatic for the juvenile victim. It puts defense attorneys in a very difficult position. Either they'll be reviled for traumatizing the victim, or face review by an appeals court for not "adequately" defending a client by refusing to put the child under duress on the stand.
It's way past my bedtime, so the above opinion is probably as clear as that guy's - clear as mud! I apologize.