I am highly suspicious of the children's advocacy centers. Those are the CPS agencies at the county level. In addition to funding them via the state, we need to look at everyone who is a private donor currently. Frankly that could be where some of this corruption and pay to play / rape is coming from. Furthermore, I simply do not understand why it is up to a CAC at the local level to prepare a child witness for trial. That needs to be the prosecutor's job. For real. Finally, the rules of evidence and testimony aren't likely to be easily changed but what is to stop a judge from interviewing the child in chambers? The confrontation clause must have some exceptions for child victims or it would be virtually impossible to prosecute anyone, and that would be a very big problem. If you can prosecute a death case then you should be able to prosecute a case with a living victim without exposing the child to the trauma of the court room and cross examination. Most of these should be worked out before trial if the perpetrator is guilty. If someone goes to trial on a child rape case then that is a very very gutsy defendant, and a very brave victim. 90% of everything goes away with plea deals anyway. I get that the defendant has an important constitutional right to a jury trial and that the witness needs to testify, but child witnesses and crimes against children can be treated differently. If we have a special juvenile court for juvenile defendants then why can't we have special trial rules for child victims?
view the rest of the comments →
cakeoflightylight ago
I am highly suspicious of the children's advocacy centers. Those are the CPS agencies at the county level. In addition to funding them via the state, we need to look at everyone who is a private donor currently. Frankly that could be where some of this corruption and pay to play / rape is coming from. Furthermore, I simply do not understand why it is up to a CAC at the local level to prepare a child witness for trial. That needs to be the prosecutor's job. For real. Finally, the rules of evidence and testimony aren't likely to be easily changed but what is to stop a judge from interviewing the child in chambers? The confrontation clause must have some exceptions for child victims or it would be virtually impossible to prosecute anyone, and that would be a very big problem. If you can prosecute a death case then you should be able to prosecute a case with a living victim without exposing the child to the trauma of the court room and cross examination. Most of these should be worked out before trial if the perpetrator is guilty. If someone goes to trial on a child rape case then that is a very very gutsy defendant, and a very brave victim. 90% of everything goes away with plea deals anyway. I get that the defendant has an important constitutional right to a jury trial and that the witness needs to testify, but child witnesses and crimes against children can be treated differently. If we have a special juvenile court for juvenile defendants then why can't we have special trial rules for child victims?