Exactly, which seems to me that's what they were after. Surely no parent would accept money over prison if he really did abuse their child? No matter how much it was, putting a price on their child's innocence is technically selling their body for sexual services.
After I typed my reply, I considered editing it and adding something that looked incredibly similar to your last sentence, but instead I moved on to the next story. I held back because I remembered that some people are litigious and it's quite normal to want to be compensated for bad things that happen to you (and your children). And I couldn't really argue the point because, in some way, I understand it. It seems wrong to me that nobody questioned the ethics of the parents, but maybe people thought they'd been through enough. I don't know. It's an emotive issue. Which perhaps is even more reason for the impartial hand of the legal system.
What do you think of Michael Jackson?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Exactly, which seems to me that's what they were after. Surely no parent would accept money over prison if he really did abuse their child? No matter how much it was, putting a price on their child's innocence is technically selling their body for sexual services.
--
dappled
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
After I typed my reply, I considered editing it and adding something that looked incredibly similar to your last sentence, but instead I moved on to the next story. I held back because I remembered that some people are litigious and it's quite normal to want to be compensated for bad things that happen to you (and your children). And I couldn't really argue the point because, in some way, I understand it. It seems wrong to me that nobody questioned the ethics of the parents, but maybe people thought they'd been through enough. I don't know. It's an emotive issue. Which perhaps is even more reason for the impartial hand of the legal system.