So this is what some liberal lawyers really think when it comes to dealing with sex offenders putting them away for a good period of time:
Apparently this guy (as a defense lawyer) will "rip apart" children who have been victims of child rape if they have to take the witness stand. This is his rationale for opposing mandatory sentencing of 25 years for sex offenders, for the simple fact that he is a defense lawyer who has to defend the slimy human beings that commit such crimes. In creating a defense, I guess slamming a kid who has no understanding of how defense lawyers tear down a victim's credibility to build a defense case is his way of defending these child rapists. Could defense lawyers find some other sort of evidence, rather than trying to find holes in a 7-year-old's story about a rape? Nope, apparently the extent of his legal savvy is to interrogate young victims of rape and somehow trick them into providing some sort of story incoherence that will somehow support a defense of a rapist.
Don't you think a child that was put through such a traumatic experience would sleep much better knowing the "bad man" was in jail for 25 years and has no chance of hurting him or her again? I think that is a little more peace of mind than maybe having to relive some of the details of the rape in describing what happened in a courtroom. Liberal judges would have us believe that being a child rapist is a "disease", and allowing them out of jail as early as THREE MONTHS (see judge Edward Cashman, CLICK HERE) after being incarcerated for raping a child is an OK sentence. Over my dead body. Raping a child is not an "affliction," it's a crime.