一点浩然气,千里快哉风.
所谓浩然正气，就是正大刚直之气，也就是人世间的正气。正气源自于人的正信与正念。儒家的孟子认为，一个人如果具有了浩气长存的精神力量，即使面对外界一切巨大诱惑或威胁，也能处变不惊，镇定自若，达到"不动心"的崇高精神境界。那就是孟子曾经说过的富贵不能淫，贫贱不能
正文
联邦参议员肯尼迪刚刚过世，麻塞德赛州总检查长Martha Coakley正式宣布竞选议员职位。由于Coakley目前呼声最高，人们把她90年代插手的一起幼儿性虐待案件Fells Acre Day Care又翻了出来。
80年代美国正陷入儿童性虐待恐慌，到了歇斯底里状态。Fells Acre案在当年就已经沸沸扬扬炒遍媒体。大多数美国人认为这是一起冤案，而且至今没有平反。
Fells Acre家庭幼儿园由一老太太Violet Amirault和她的一儿Gerald Amirault 一女Cheryl Amirault LeFave经营。1984年，有一次一个4岁男孩尿裤子，老太太的儿子“儿子”帮他换了裤子。到年底，这个男孩的妈妈发现他有一次和他的兄弟玩性游戏，妈妈问谁教的，小孩说是幼儿园的老师(老太太的儿子)教的。妈妈报警。警察迅速查封幼儿园，逮捕老太太和其一儿一女。警察召集几十个先后去过这家幼儿园的孩子家长，要求他们协助调查，性虐待症状有小孩爱尿床，食欲不振，睡觉多恶梦。
经过警察，心理学家，精神治疗师和社工的层层审讯，筛选出4个孩子作为证人。审讯方法包括诱导提问，重复不断提问，用玩具做道具模拟提问。审讯成果是这些孩子被强奸(rape)了，强奸工具包括刀子，棍子，饭叉，魔杖。作案地点是“秘密小屋”或“魔屋”(楼上厕所)。孩子被强迫喝尿，裸体绑在树上等等。
1985年，陪审团裁定被告有罪。老太太和女儿被判8-20年，儿子被判30-40年。
此案争议最大的是小孩子证词的可靠性和审讯方式。
1993年，新的心理学研究指出小孩证词的不可靠性。州立法院试图给老太太和女儿减刑准备释放出狱。谁知州立最高法院推翻减刑裁决，说要等待最后裁决“finality”。等待中，老太太死在狱中。州立最高法院裁决此案不许重审。
1999年，州立地区检察官Mathar Coakley与(老太太的)女儿达成协议，释放出狱，10年监管(probation)，不许电视采访，不许联系小孩子们的家长，不许卖故事挣钱。
2001年，州立释放机构(parole board)提出释放(commutate)(老太太的)儿子，被代理州长Jane Swift 拒绝。
2004年，(老太太的)儿子Gerald Amirault 终于出狱。
Martha\'s involvement in the Fells Acre case (1983-84) began in 1999 and continued to the time of Gerald Amerault\'s parole in 2004. During that period, she consistently opposed granting pardon or parole to the Ameraults and managed to attach odious conditions to the two paroles finally granted.
For a number of years during the 1990s, she built a career on child abuse cases, most of which were valid and based on solid evidence, but some of which were based largely or entirely on the testimony of small children who had developed memories of abuse after manipulation by parents, psychologists, or police. The Ray and Shirley Souza case is one such cast prosecuted by Martha in 1993. They received incompetent counsel, were convicted without a jury trial, and sentenced to nine years of house arrest. In many ways, Martha did good service against child abuse, but in some cases she ignored the danger of tainted testimony of children and failed to insist on clear physical evidence. She also generally opted for harsh punishment in these questionable cases and opposed retrials, appeals, paroles, and pardons.
Her vigorous prosecution of doubtful cases and cases of self-evident innocence has bordered on the vindictive. Why? Lack of sound judgment or political ambition?
80年代美国正陷入儿童性虐待恐慌，到了歇斯底里状态。Fells Acre案在当年就已经沸沸扬扬炒遍媒体。大多数美国人认为这是一起冤案，而且至今没有平反。
Fells Acre家庭幼儿园由一老太太Violet Amirault和她的一儿Gerald Amirault 一女Cheryl Amirault LeFave经营。1984年，有一次一个4岁男孩尿裤子，老太太的儿子“儿子”帮他换了裤子。到年底，这个男孩的妈妈发现他有一次和他的兄弟玩性游戏，妈妈问谁教的，小孩说是幼儿园的老师(老太太的儿子)教的。妈妈报警。警察迅速查封幼儿园，逮捕老太太和其一儿一女。警察召集几十个先后去过这家幼儿园的孩子家长，要求他们协助调查，性虐待症状有小孩爱尿床，食欲不振，睡觉多恶梦。
经过警察，心理学家，精神治疗师和社工的层层审讯，筛选出4个孩子作为证人。审讯方法包括诱导提问，重复不断提问，用玩具做道具模拟提问。审讯成果是这些孩子被强奸(rape)了，强奸工具包括刀子，棍子，饭叉，魔杖。作案地点是“秘密小屋”或“魔屋”(楼上厕所)。孩子被强迫喝尿，裸体绑在树上等等。
1985年，陪审团裁定被告有罪。老太太和女儿被判8-20年，儿子被判30-40年。
此案争议最大的是小孩子证词的可靠性和审讯方式。
1993年，新的心理学研究指出小孩证词的不可靠性。州立法院试图给老太太和女儿减刑准备释放出狱。谁知州立最高法院推翻减刑裁决，说要等待最后裁决“finality”。等待中，老太太死在狱中。州立最高法院裁决此案不许重审。
1999年，州立地区检察官Mathar Coakley与(老太太的)女儿达成协议，释放出狱，10年监管(probation)，不许电视采访，不许联系小孩子们的家长，不许卖故事挣钱。
2001年，州立释放机构(parole board)提出释放(commutate)(老太太的)儿子，被代理州长Jane Swift 拒绝。
2004年，(老太太的)儿子Gerald Amirault 终于出狱。
Martha\'s involvement in the Fells Acre case (1983-84) began in 1999 and continued to the time of Gerald Amerault\'s parole in 2004. During that period, she consistently opposed granting pardon or parole to the Ameraults and managed to attach odious conditions to the two paroles finally granted.
For a number of years during the 1990s, she built a career on child abuse cases, most of which were valid and based on solid evidence, but some of which were based largely or entirely on the testimony of small children who had developed memories of abuse after manipulation by parents, psychologists, or police. The Ray and Shirley Souza case is one such cast prosecuted by Martha in 1993. They received incompetent counsel, were convicted without a jury trial, and sentenced to nine years of house arrest. In many ways, Martha did good service against child abuse, but in some cases she ignored the danger of tainted testimony of children and failed to insist on clear physical evidence. She also generally opted for harsh punishment in these questionable cases and opposed retrials, appeals, paroles, and pardons.
Her vigorous prosecution of doubtful cases and cases of self-evident innocence has bordered on the vindictive. Why? Lack of sound judgment or political ambition?
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
