Right, so how should the public react if they find out that Ms. Coakley went easy on (at least one) real child molesters and threw the book at innocents so people wouldn’t realize she was soft?

Reason why Scott Brown won’t challenge Coakley on the Amirault conviction:

Child Molestation accusations are the neutron bomb of criminal accusations. Just the mere accusation of such a heinous, unnatural act totally destroys the individual accused unless they are an exceptionally strong individual. Friends flee to the hinterland to avoid association with the accused.

In the curious timing department, Gerald Amirault was the guest of the Dennis & Callahan morning talk show on WEEI radio in Boston TODAY. He gave a lengthy interview about his case, his trial, his lengthy imprisonment, and the role then Middlesex County D.A. Martha Coakley played in keeping him imprisoned an extra 3 years.

He mentioned that he isn’t voting for the lady that helped keep him in prison for a full 18 years until he was finally paroled in 2004. Nor are his family or friends. He seemed an enthusiastic, authentic Scott Brown for Senate supporter for some reason…….

Amirault really didn’t sound bitter. Really.

Here’s the link to his interview:

http://castroller.com/podcasts/WeeiDennis/1411531

Why don’t I ever see “law and order” types pursuing such a line? Even if cares only about catching the guilty, without regard for the costs to the innocent, any resources the state spends persecuting innocent people are resources which are not used to go after guilty ones.

I could never label myself a “Libertarian” insofar as it requires drinking the supply-side/Objectivist Koolaid.

I see you drink different Kool-Aid instead.

I still think it is funny how the peasants think they have choices during elections.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Is_Martha_Coakley_committed_to_justice_Radley_Balko

The reason they won’t is because it’s easy to draft Coakley’s response attacking Brown: “Brown likes child molestors”.

If Brown’s campaign were smart, they would draft it as “while real child molesters were stalking our children, Coakley was pursuing innocent people based on quackery. When the truth came out, she cared more about protecting her conviction than protecting our children.”

Not a bright idea, as she has thugs that beat people up in public for that shit.

Scott Brown, however, honors the heroes of Fenway Park and the proud traditions of Boston Sports.

Drudge and Politico – fact-free right wing dweebness at its worst.

Dweebosity? Dweebology? Dweebocrats!

BTW, it strikes me that we’ve been treated to another good illustration that the default media stereotypes of Democrats and Republicans (encouraged by their own spinmeisters) are totally unreliable. Your link yesterday to the Reason piece on how legislators kowtowing to state and local government employee unions is bankrupting them made mention of the fact that plenty of Republicans have been part of the scam, even though one might expect them to resist union money grabs, expansions of government payrolls, and generally grossly irresponsible spending. And here today we have evidence that the Democrat candidate in a pretty liberal state is actually a pro-prosecution hard liner, even though I would guess many traditional Democrats would expect otherwise and would see her work on cases like Amirault’s as appalling.

What we need is an Adam Walsh Act for government officials who victimize children and their families in the name of justice.

That person should be Radley Balko — he has “the look”.

The mixing of politics and the administration of justice attracts pathological individuals and then rewards their pathology when in office. Judicial power of any kind should result in a minimum 20 year ban on the holding of elective office.

Regards, Don

and I could never label myself a “Libertarian” insofar as it requires drinking the supply-side/Objectivist Koolaid.

I don’t subscribe to the “supply side/objectivist” koolaide either. What I do like is liberty and being able to keep my own property. How is this “drinking koolaid”?

Some one as deeply pathological as Coakley cannot be trusted with power, however close her stated positions might be to my own.

I think this is true of anyone in our government these days. Recall the quote Radley has posted before?

We want the government to guarantee our health, to deflect hurricanes, to educate our children, to license us to drive, to tell us what to eat, what to smoke, whom to marry. We are justly proud of the fact that no enduring society has ever incarcerated more of its people. Noting that the policeman has a pistol, a club, a stungun, a can of pepper spray, and a data base that includes ourselves, we feel happy and secure.

Our submission is absolute: we want to be operated like puppets and provided for like pets.

The terrorists hate our freedom. But we should be comfortable with that. We hate our own freedom.–Crispin Sartwell

Or if that is too much, how about Lord Acton?

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority.

It isn’t the people we elect that are the problem, it is the system itself. You give power to those whom you elect and then are shocked when they abuse such power. From my perspective, it is to be expected.

Also, no sense pining for Scott Brown to use the Gerald-Amirault angle against Coakley. He is trying to get to the Right of her on every law enforcement issue he can dig up. Indeed, if the GOP Right had it all its own way in this country in the 1980s and 1990s, the victims of the recovered-memory persecutions would have been put to death after child rape was made a capital offense. (Even Obama has endorsed the death penalty for child rape. Imagine how that would have turned out during the recovered-memory hysteria.)

If they’re smart, the Brown campaign would feature him in a ad attacking Coakley on the issue.

The reason they won’t is because it’s easy to draft Coakley’s response attacking Brown: “Brown likes child molestors”. Which will the voters listen to? Those four words or Brown’s long, complex explanation of all the details? Facts don’t matter; perception is everything in campaigns.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Gerald Amirault, his mother Violet who owned the Fells Acres Day Care center, and his sister who worked there, were convicted of multiple child abuse charges by Middlesex County D.A. Scott Harshbarger, a predecessor of A.G. Martha Coakley, back during the nationwide day car center child-abuse hysteria of the 1980′s.

Many people presume that if a jury is guided to the conclusion that a person is then found guilty, then they must in fact be guilty.

Partisan prosecutorial zealot Martha Coakley will presumably go to her grave still asserting that Amirault is guilty.

Hurry the day……

If they’re smart, the Brown campaign would feature him in a ad attacking Coakley on the issue.

The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments in the civil commitment case of Graydon Comstock who plead guilty and got 3 years in prison for receiving child porn, but just before he was released, he was civilly committed to an indefinite term (commonly for life) of incarceration under a federal civil commitment order.

So, on one hand, we have a guy whose 3-year sentence was converted to a life term for a crime the government thinks he might commit and on the other, a public official who conspired to torture and utterly ruin the lives of dozens of adults and children, yet suffers hardly a hiccup on their career path.

What we need is an Adam Walsh Act for government officials who victimize children and their families in the name of justice.