5 Comments

This should replace the paracide orphan as the definition of chutzpah.

N.J.: Drunk drivers can sue the bars that served them, cont’d.

And

“Court Bars Molester From Suing Parents of Her Victim”

The juxtaposition of those two blog headlines struck me as odd. Odd that we as a society facilitate and give judicial sanction to hold a third party accountable for one kind of personal, aberrant behavior destructive to others, yet find it repugnant and unacceptable to hold a third party accountable for completely different kinds of personal, aberrant behavior destructive to others.

Why should the bartender be held more responsible for a drunk’s rampage than the porn webmaster’s responsibility for a freak-a-zoid’s assault?

presumably because the bartender is standing right in front of the person they are serving and have a far better notion if someone has had to many drinks.

Also, a bartender has a duty to his customers. A parent doesn’t owe a duty to child molesters.

There is a problem with the case. Often one accused of sexual crimes are given a choice of a severe sentence upon the high likelihood of conviction and a sentence involving therapy and probation. Those who chose the less risky plea deal usually do not realize that the will be labeled a child molester. Roman Polanski found out that a plea deal can unravel.

We had a case in Westchester County where a poor teacher was imprisoned for years because she tutored students in her home. She eventually was cleared after losing her marriage. Instead of discounting the short bus punk as a guy who could not appreciate the consequences of his charges (They were ridiculous too.) the moronic jury indulged, as many juries do, their wicked imaginings.

Yes I know about teachers who marry their students. There are a bunch of such cases because there are lots of teachers. It is a stange world.