Bring home a D, get tortured for it.

Link

Quote :

The 14-year-old stood next to the assistant district attorney who prosecuted his mother for child abuse -- the man's hand softly placed in the middle of his back for support.

Prosecutor Christopher Hoffman was about to ask the judge to send Sharron E. Watson to prison for what she did to him.

But the boy, who had been beaten so badly that he could have died, asked Judge Randal B. Todd to spare his mother.

"Please don't send my mom to jail," were the only words he could speak.

Judge Todd could not honor the boy's request. But he did acknowledge the power of it.

"That's how strong his love is for his mother," the judge said. "God bless him."

It's all the more amazing, or frightening, when you consider what his mother and her boyfriend did to him:

Quote :

According to the prosecution, the beatings were led by her boyfriend, Steven A. Bledsoe. They began in November 2007 when the youngster received a D on his sixth-grade report card.

It only ended after the abuse was reported by family members to the Department of Children, Youth and Families, around New Year's Day 2008.

Police were sent to the family's home, but left saying there would be a follow-up from social services.

Ms. Watson and Mr. Bledsoe then fled and were found three days later at a hotel on McKnight Road.

By that time, the boy's injuries were so severe that he required a two-week hospitalization.

His right buttock was nearly severed and required a skin graft to repair. Doctors testified at Ms. Watson's trial that he could have died from the injury.

...

One day the boy was lying on the floor with the gaping wound on his buttock. Mr. Bledsoe, wearing work boots, put his toe into the injury and ground his foot into it while Ms. Watson sat on the couch eating.

The young man screamed out for her, but she ignored him.

...

His little brothers have been affected, too. At times, they were directed to beat their brother with belts and jumper cables.

And get this, the woman's defense attorney actually suggested that she be given a lenient sentence so she can continue to be in her sons' lives:

Quote :

At Tuesday's sentencing, Ms. Watson's defense attorney, Ernest H.
Sharif, asked Judge Todd not to allow emotion to outweigh justice.

"He has healed since then. He's walking, and he's fine. He wants to
be reunited with his mother," Mr. Sharif said. "The mother made some
bad judgments. The child's not dead. The child's not paralyzed. The
child's not crippled for life."

Slimy fucking smooth-talker. Yeah, getting half your ass ripped off and being beaten by your brothers because they're being forced to isn't crippling, I guess. And it's totally emotionally healthy to want to be with the mom who did all this shit to you (not that I'm blaming the poor kid, but man, he needs to be free of this psychopath, both physically and emotionally).

And a mom ripping her kid's ass off and letting some fuckwad GRIND HIS FOOT INTO THE WOUND is "bad judgement"? I guess someone killing these two wastes of flesh in prison/after they get out would be a case of "bad judgement", too.

How does one nearly cut off someone's buttcheek?

THEY BEAT HIS ASS OFF

JESUS CHRIST

I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONLY A SAYING

Dick Powers wrote:

How does one nearly cut off someone's buttcheek?

I heard of this story, a long while back, where this woman cut off a guy's asscheeks. I'd imagine that if you sliced off the muscle or damaged it enough, it would be severely crippling; you need those muscles to walk and stuff.

But yeah, I don't really want to know either.

I'm more worried about the kid wanting the judge to let his mother go, and the lawyer wanting her to be allowed to continue to 'be involved in her son's life.' I have no doubt at all that this kid was probably told repeatedly that everything that happened to him was his own damn fault for not being good enough, and even if the boyfriend was the one saying it, his mother apparently never tried to stand up for him. And unless the boyfriend had some kind of mind-control going on with her, she knew what she had done well enough to try and run off with the kid when they realized they'd been found out. I know kids love their mothers and want to see them as pure and blameless, but I'm worried this kid's been set up to be a lifelong victim with no self-esteem and the belief that anything bad that happens to him in his own fault.

The absolute LAST person he needs in his life is his mother, if only because her taste in men is highly questionable.

Quote :

"That's how strong his love is for his mother," the judge said. "God bless him."

I'd say it's an adequate measure of how out of his mind he is. But you know, your pile of bullshit is good too.

ALSO, what do you expect the defense attorney to do? It's his job to get people like this off of the hook. Which is why it's the prosecutor's job to make sure he doesn't.

I'm not a big Ray Lewis fan, but I understand that it isn't his job to let Rashard Mendenhall tip-toe into the endzone.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

ALSO, what do you expect the defense attorney to do? It's his job to get people like this off of the hook. Which is why it's the prosecutor's job to make sure he doesn't.

I'm not a big Ray Lewis fan, but I understand that it isn't his job to let Rashard Mendenhall tip-toe into the endzone.

He took a big, and IMHO morally inexcusable leap when he characterized a mother letting her son almost be beaten and tortured to death as a "bad judgement". He also minimized the boy's pain and injuries, both emotional and physical.

Trying to argue his client's innocence is one thing. Trying to sweet-talk the judge into letting this extremely emotionally damaged child be with the mother who abandoned him to a torturer is another thing entirely. I hope the boy didn't hear that because it could not have been good for him at all. Under those circumstances, I think it was a cruel, wrong, and dispicable thing to even suggest.

Malganis wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

ALSO, what do you expect the defense attorney to do? It's his job to get people like this off of the hook. Which is why it's the prosecutor's job to make sure he doesn't.

I'm not a big Ray Lewis fan, but I understand that it isn't his job to let Rashard Mendenhall tip-toe into the endzone.

He took a big, and IMHO morally inexcusable leap when he characterized a mother letting her son almost be beaten and tortured to death as a "bad judgement". He also minimized the boy's pain and injuries, both emotional and physical.

Trying to argue his client's innocence is one thing. Trying to sweet-talk the judge into letting this extremely emotionally damaged child be with the mother who abandoned him to a torturer is another thing entirely. I hope the boy didn't hear that because it could not have been good for him at all. Under those circumstances, I think it was a cruel, wrong, and dispicable thing to even suggest.

Phoenix Wright is not a real defense attorney.

Penguin wrote:

Phoenix Wright is not a real defense attorney.

Of course he isn't, he's a piano player.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Phoenix Wright is not a real defense attorney.

Of course he isn't, he's a piano player.

He's not even that! He's a cheating poker player masquerading as a terrible pianist.

I agree with Penguin's initial point, btw.

...Okay, I have no idea what Phoenix Wright has to do with this. Someone enlighten me, plz?

Malganis wrote:

...Okay, I have no idea what Phoenix Wright has to do with this. Someone enlighten me, plz?

Phoenix will only take a case if he thinks the client is innocent (unless he gets blackmailed into it). Penguin was trying to say that it's the defense attorney's job to do their best for their client, no matter how much of a horrible human being they may be, and it is therefore rather naive to draw a connection between the attorneys' clients' morals and their own.

Malganis wrote:

...Okay, I have no idea what Phoenix Wright has to do with this. Someone enlighten me, plz?

You said that a defense attorney who was arguing for lenience for his client (when his client had done a horrible thing) was overstepping the bounds of morality. Phoenix Wright is an idealist who in all cases but one has a wrongly accused, innocent client, and in the one case where his client is guilty, feels the Truth is the most important thing and only continues to defend him because of blackmail.

The real world does not work like that. The defense attorney is the client's advocate -- even when they've committed a crime, even when that crime is horrible. It is within his duty to downplay the harm his client has caused and argue for a lighter sentence. It is the judge and jury's duty to convict the guilty and hand out appropriate sentences in spite of this. It is the attorney's JOB to get their client the lightest sentence possible; this is understood by everyone in the court. You are being too much of an idealist.

Malganis wrote:

He took a big, and IMHO morally inexcusable leap when he characterized a mother letting her son almost be beaten and tortured to death as a "bad judgement".

Well, this is broadly true. In the sense that the statement "the surface of the sun is warm" is broadly true.

Yeah, and if you half-ass the job because you think the client is guilty and you don't like him, you can get disbarred. This is doubly-true if you're court-appointed and they practically force you into it.

Miss Prince wrote:

You said that a defense attorney who was arguing for lenience for his client (when his client had done a horrible thing) was overstepping the bounds of morality.

Not necessarily arguing for leniency, but you must admit, it does sound ludicrous on paper, and presumably to hear it in real life, that a kid getting the sort of abuse that this boy got is from mere "bad judgement". That phrasing is not so much an attorney doing their job, that's... an incredibly bad phrasing of what actually happened. It is so obviously far from any description of actual reality that it comes off as an insult to basic intelligence.

Miss Prince wrote:

You are being too much of an idealist.

Yes, I am, but I honestly cringe to think of this kid possibly hearing this shit.

Malganis wrote:

Miss Prince wrote:

You said that a defense attorney who was arguing for lenience for his client (when his client had done a horrible thing) was overstepping the bounds of morality.

Not necessarily arguing for leniency, but you must admit, it does sound ludicrous on paper, and presumably to hear it in real life, that a kid getting the sort of abuse that this boy got is from mere "bad judgement". That phrasing is not so much an attorney doing their job, that's... an incredibly bad phrasing of what actually happened. It is so obviously far from any description of actual reality that it comes off as an insult to basic intelligence.

For your own sanity, never read transcripts of lawyers asking for leniency for convicted rapists. Or animal abusers. Or domestic violence-prone people. Or hell, any violent crime. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What the fuck

I thought it was proven that "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things" wasn't based on true events [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ceres wrote:

Yeah, and if you half-ass the job

That's not even funny, and its relevance wan't even intentional (I hope), but I couldn't help but notice it! Am I a terrible person? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not only that, but when I heard this was all the boyfriends idea, I couldn't help but wonder if his parents had treated him similarily when he didn't get good grades. It doesn't excuse what he did, but it's just sad to think about if it's true.

"No honey, we should totally do it! My parents used to do it to me all the time, and I turned out fine!"

Just sayin'.