|
|
Post by beavadelic on Jun 7, 2018 10:07:47 GMT -8
This will be my last comments on here about Luke’s situation, but I have to say that I’m beyond disappointed with the way that the keystone kops of korvallis, the media as a whole for the most part, Major League Baseball and even certain judgemental members of Beaver Nation dealt with this.
First of all, whatever happened to living in a democracy in which people are 1) innocent until PROVEN guilty, and 2) given the opportunity to pay their dues and then get a second chance? If people cared to take the time to read the story through in it’s entirety, Luke only once “admitted” to the charges, that at the behest of a court-appointed attorney when he was told he could do jail time if it went to court, the plea would relieve the heart-breaking and divisive impact on his family with a vindictive soon-to-be ex-sister in law looking for blood, AND the documents would be sealed and not available to the public when he was an adult. Even if he had done the alleged crime, he did everything expected of him and has been a model citizen, and the psychologist working with him said that there was good reason to believe that he was innocent to begin with.
Such hypocrisy abounds as basically addicts and assaultive people who are far more dangerous are given that second chance that so many seem unwilling to grant this kid.
I have spent my 38 year career working with kids and protecting them. I’ve worked in the juvenile system, I’ve worked in the schools, and I am the first to acknowledge the problem of child abuse and to denounce that horrible behavior. My problem is that people just jumped to conclusions, and we have armchair judges, juries and executions everywhere who don’t seem to care about looking deeper. I have seen kids plead guilty to things that they didn’t do, I’ve seen 5 and 6 year olds change their stories a dozen times, I’ve seen agenda-driven adults manipulate the words and memories of children to suit their purposes. The latest hack to stay in the shallow end was Gary Horowitz with the Statesman Urinal this morning. All he said was Luke pleaded but later denied it. My guess is that this is what 90% of the public and MLB are getting as well, and they are all judging this kind d and torpedoing a brilliant career and exemplary young man in the process. People are righteously-indignant and oh so holy, when I’d imagine that if their lives were scrutinized, they would’ve more than a little embarrassed, ashamed and grateful that society didn’t come down on them and sentence them to a life of eternal restitution!
|
|
bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 970 
|
Post by bill82 on Jun 7, 2018 11:13:46 GMT -8
I watched I, Tonya last week. The movies does a very good job illustrating the complexities that emerge when you combine a dysfunctional family and a talented athlete. It certainly changed my perspective on Harding's role in the Kerrigan knee-capping. I imagine an "I, Luke" might reveal similar complexities and challenges to navigate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 7, 2018 12:30:05 GMT -8
This will be my last comments on here about Luke’s situation, but I have to say that I’m beyond disappointed with the way that the keystone kops of korvallis, the media as a whole for the most part, Major League Baseball and even certain judgemental members of Beaver Nation dealt with this. First of all, whatever happened to living in a democracy in which people are 1) innocent until PROVEN guilty, and 2) given the opportunity to pay their dues and then get a second chance? If people cared to take the time to read the story through in it’s entirety, Luke only once “admitted” to the charges, that at the behest of a court-appointed attorney when he was told he could do jail time if it went to court, the plea would relieve the heart-breaking and divisive impact on his family with a vindictive soon-to-be ex-sister in law looking for blood, AND the documents would be sealed and not available to the public when he was an adult. Even if he had done the alleged crime, he did everything expected of him and has been a model citizen, and the psychologist working with him said that there was good reason to believe that he was innocent to begin with. Such hypocrisy abounds as basically addicts and assaultive people who are far more dangerous are given that second chance that so many seem unwilling to grant this kid. I have spent my 38 year career working with kids and protecting them. I’ve worked in the juvenile system, I’ve worked in the schools, and I am the first to acknowledge the problem of child abuse and to denounce that horrible behavior. My problem is that people just jumped to conclusions, and we have armchair judges, juries and executions everywhere who don’t seem to care about looking deeper. I have seen kids plead guilty to things that they didn’t do, I’ve seen 5 and 6 year olds change their stories a dozen times, I’ve seen agenda-driven adults manipulate the words and memories of children to suit their purposes. The latest hack to stay in the shallow end was Gary Horowitz with the Statesman Urinal this morning. All he said was Luke pleaded but later denied it. My guess is that this is what 90% of the public and MLB are getting as well, and they are all judging this kind d and torpedoing a brilliant career and exemplary young man in the process. People are righteously-indignant and oh so holy, when I’d imagine that if their lives were scrutinized, they would’ve more than a little embarrassed, ashamed and grateful that society didn’t come down on them and sentence them to a life of eternal restitution! Speaking just for myself I would have no issues whatever with any team that chose to sign LH. I think he's more than fully paid his debt to society. But lets not forget that MLB is only nominally a competitive athletic meritocracy. It is at heart a for-profit entertainment enterprise looking to sell hot dogs, advertising time and t-shirts. If a player, in their estimation, can't help them do that, he is of little value to them. Life is a vale of tears. |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jun 7, 2018 15:04:20 GMT -8
I haven't weighed in much on LH's situation. I'll take a crack and let it go:
1) People who think innocent people never plead guilty are truly and phenomenally ignorant on that topic. Happens a fair amount. I am a criminal defense attorney who handles ~100 cases/year and I can tell you that I have helped innocent people sign a change of plea form to plead guilty in order to avoid what could be heavy consequences should they lose at trial. Sometimes the judges know it and sometimes even the unscrupulous DA's know it, but it happens. It's no joke when you are facing 20+ years in prison and the DA's office is offering six months or even credit for time served and probation. It sucks. It sucks being the defendant and it sucks being their attorney because you know the case can be won and your client has to "admit" to something he/she did not do, but when serious prison time and/or other, awful consequences loom, sometimes it's best to turn tail. Any criminal lawyer who tells you different is lying.
In Luke's case: I don't know what the consequences are in Washington if he had gone to trial and lost nor do I know what other options he had; I practice in California. It is possible that even if he had lost at trial that his jail, prison or youth authority time would not have been too high, but if he would have been required to be a lifetime sex offender registrant, that is no joke. Registered sex offenders have an extremely difficult time getting jobs (people with long theft/theft-related records have an easier time) and a very difficult time renting an apartment. As life moves on, a lot of them end up homeless and broken. I see it all the time. It is one of the worst (but often well-earned) consequences of our criminal and juvenile justice system.
2) #1) being said, I have also signed up plenty of defendants who will swear to their dying day that they are innocent but the evidence shows and my conclusion is that they are not. There are far more of them -- far, far, far more of them --than people who are innocent but take a plea deal. Some of them even tell me that they will take the deal just to "get it over with." Really? You'll sign up for a 6 year stretch just to get it over with? But they do. Pathological liars are commonplace in the justice system. (I am not calling Luke a pathological liar.)
3) I don't know whether Luke did the things to which he admitted, but I tend to believe that he did. His admission is compelling but weighing more in my mind is his broken relationship with his brother. It takes a lot to no longer speak to your brother. Additionally, one has to have a serious hate on to accuse someone of the crimes to which Luke has admitted.
Contradictory evidence: Polygraphs? They mean nothing to me; the reason that they are generally excluded from evidence is that they are unreliable, both ways. The thing that makes me doubt my conclusion the most is that there are professionals who have worked with Luke and have said that they doubt it ever happened. For that reason I would not convict Luke at a criminal trial where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof but I would find him liable in a civil trial where the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," which is often described as 50% plus a peppercorn.
This conclusion is based solely on the articles that people have posted here and a few I have read beyond. It should be obvious (but it is not to some people) and it should go without saying (but it can't to some people) that if Luke actually went to trial and I was a juror, I would enter the trial with no conclusion in mind and would have no idea what my vote would be until I had heard all of the evidence AND (this is the part that most non-lawyers forget) I had the opportunity to debate the matter with the other 11 jurors. I have had trials in which the jury reached a conclusion that was opposite of what the alternate jurors (who did hear all of the evidence but did not debate it with other jurors) concluded.
4) Regardless of whether Luke did the things to which he pled, he should have never publicly stated that he did not. If he was unwilling to admit that he did so, then he should have remained silent. Now, a significant chunk of the population is publicly branding him --excoriating him!-- as a liar.
5) If Luke did do the things to which he admitted, he still should be allowed to move on from them and pursue the highest goals in life that he can achieve. These were juvenile transgressions and there is a reason that the justice system treats juveniles differently from adults and gives juveniles a much greater chance to move on from the wrongdoing. Luke should be able to become the best baseball player that he can be.
6) Unfortunately for Luke, our society is not a by-and-large forgiving one. We have one of the harshest justice systems in the developed world and I believe that it is a reflection of the great majority of the population which does not forgive, does not forget, and likes to see wrongdoers punished severely. The wrath of that unforgiving society is now laying its full vengeance on a man who did something wrong as a teenager and has now done just about everything right since then. By all evidence, Luke has taken great efforts to develop himself as a good person and become an outstanding member of society. That's not good enough for our society. The self-righteous among us do not have the ability to recognize that good people can do bad things.
Our media loves to pile on that s%#t. There are programs (TMZ, for example) whose whole (or, at least, biggest) purpose is to lay the hate down on celebrities and people who become celebrities due to some transgression. Our politicians love to slam the wrongdoers. Our general population has a lot of moral outrage and likes to shun wrongdoers from society (and then wonders why they fail to integrate themselves back in).
7) Consequently, it does not surprise me even slightly that MLB will give Luke no shot. The owners and the league administrators are well aware of the backlash that will happen to the team that drafts or signs him and they want no part of it. Professional sports is already taking a hit from the ever-more reported crimes of the players, and there's probably not a whole lot more that they will take.
Luke's getting way worse than he deserves and society is condemning a man to being less than he can be. It sucks.
That's my take. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 16:59:47 GMT -8
I haven't weighed in much on LH's situation. I'll take a crack and let it go:
1) People who think innocent people never plead guilty are truly and phenomenally ignorant on that topic. Happens a fair amount. I am a criminal defense attorney who handles ~100 cases/year and I can tell you that I have helped innocent people sign a change of plea form to plead guilty in order to avoid what could be heavy consequences should they lose at trial. Sometimes the judges know it and sometimes even the unscrupulous DA's know it, but it happens. It's no joke when you are facing 20+ years in prison and the DA's office is offering six months or even credit for time served and probation. It sucks. It sucks being the defendant and it sucks being their attorney because you know the case can be won and your client has to "admit" to something he/she did not do, but when serious prison time and/or other, awful consequences loom, sometimes it's best to turn tail. Any criminal lawyer who tells you different is lying.
In Luke's case: I don't know what the consequences are in Washington if he had gone to trial and lost nor do I know what other options he had; I practice in California. It is possible that even if he had lost at trial that his jail, prison or youth authority time would not have been too high, but if he would have been required to be a lifetime sex offender registrant, that is no joke. Registered sex offenders have an extremely difficult time getting jobs (people with long theft/theft-related records have an easier time) and a very difficult time renting an apartment. As life moves on, a lot of them end up homeless and broken. I see it all the time. It is one of the worst (but often well-earned) consequences of our criminal and juvenile justice system.
2) #1) being said, I have also signed up plenty of defendants who will swear to their dying day that they are innocent but the evidence shows and my conclusion is that they are not. There are far more of them -- far, far, far more of them --than people who are innocent but take a plea deal. Some of them even tell me that they will take the deal just to "get it over with." Really? You'll sign up for a 6 year stretch just to get it over with? But they do. Pathological liars are commonplace in the justice system. (I am not calling Luke a pathological liar.)
3) I don't know whether Luke did the things to which he admitted, but I tend to believe that he did. His admission is compelling but weighing more in my mind is his broken relationship with his brother. It takes a lot to no longer speak to your brother. Additionally, one has to have a serious hate on to accuse someone of the crimes to which Luke has admitted.
Contradictory evidence: Polygraphs? They mean nothing to me; the reason that they are generally excluded from evidence is that they are unreliable, both ways. The thing that makes me doubt my conclusion the most is that there are professionals who have worked with Luke and have said that they doubt it ever happened. For that reason I would not convict Luke at a criminal trial where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof but I would find him liable in a civil trial where the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," which is often described as 50% plus a peppercorn.
This conclusion is based solely on the articles that people have posted here and a few I have read beyond. It should be obvious (but it is not to some people) and it should go without saying (but it can't to some people) that if Luke actually went to trial and I was a juror, I would enter the trial with no conclusion in mind and would have no idea what my vote would be until I had heard all of the evidence AND (this is the part that most non-lawyers forget) I had the opportunity to debate the matter with the other 11 jurors. I have had trials in which the jury reached a conclusion that was opposite of what the alternate jurors (who did hear all of the evidence but did not debate it with other jurors) concluded.
4) Regardless of whether Luke did the things to which he pled, he should have never publicly stated that he did not. If he was unwilling to admit that he did so, then he should have remained silent. Now, a significant chunk of the population is publicly branding him --excoriating him!-- as a liar.
5) If Luke did do the things to which he admitted, he still should be allowed to move on from them and pursue the highest goals in life that he can achieve. These were juvenile transgressions and there is a reason that the justice system treats juveniles differently from adults and gives juveniles a much greater chance to move on from the wrongdoing. Luke should be able to become the best baseball player that he can be.
6) Unfortunately for Luke, our society is not a by-and-large forgiving one. We have one of the harshest justice systems in the developed world and I believe that it is a reflection of the great majority of the population which does not forgive, does not forget, and likes to see wrongdoers punished severely. The wrath of that unforgiving society is now laying its full vengeance on a man who did something wrong as a teenager and has now done just about everything right since then. By all evidence, Luke has taken great efforts to develop himself as a good person and become an outstanding member of society. That's not good enough for our society. The self-righteous among us do not have the ability to recognize that good people can do bad things.
Our media loves to pile on that s%#t. There are programs (TMZ, for example) whose whole (or, at least, biggest) purpose is to lay the hate down on celebrities and people who become celebrities due to some transgression. Our politicians love to slam the wrongdoers. Our general population has a lot of moral outrage and likes to shun wrongdoers from society (and then wonders why they fail to integrate themselves back in).
7) Consequently, it does not surprise me even slightly that MLB will give Luke no shot. The owners and the league administrators are well aware of the backlash that will happen to the team that drafts or signs him and they want no part of it. Professional sports is already taking a hit from the ever-more reported crimes of the players, and there's probably not a whole lot more that they will take.
Luke's getting way worse than he deserves and society is condemning a man to being less than he can be. It sucks.
That's my take. Great take! I agree with most of it up until the end. As William Munny says in Unforgiven: We all get what we get. I may be a cynic, but deserve has nothing to do with it. What is galling to me, is that, if adjudicated guilty, Luke only would have had to serve 40 weeks in juvi. His record would have been cleared five years after he was released, same as if he pled (well, plus the 40 weeks). I get people pleading down to avoid facing 5-10, but 40 weeks? He wound up trading the threat of 40 weeks for millions of dollars. (Of course, who is to say that Oregon State recruits him, if Luke is on probation or fresh out of juvi?) By professionals, are you talking about the one court-ordered therapist, the probation officer, or the judge? As far as I know, none of the three opined as to whether or not he was guilty, merely that he was a good kid and stuck to his story. If baseball does not work out, I would seriously consider changing my name, if I was Luke. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 17:01:25 GMT -8
I haven't weighed in much on LH's situation. I'll take a crack and let it go:
1) People who think innocent people never plead guilty are truly and phenomenally ignorant on that topic. Happens a fair amount. I am a criminal defense attorney who handles ~100 cases/year and I can tell you that I have helped innocent people sign a change of plea form to plead guilty in order to avoid what could be heavy consequences should they lose at trial. Sometimes the judges know it and sometimes even the unscrupulous DA's know it, but it happens. It's no joke when you are facing 20+ years in prison and the DA's office is offering six months or even credit for time served and probation. It sucks. It sucks being the defendant and it sucks being their attorney because you know the case can be won and your client has to "admit" to something he/she did not do, but when serious prison time and/or other, awful consequences loom, sometimes it's best to turn tail. Any criminal lawyer who tells you different is lying.
In Luke's case: I don't know what the consequences are in Washington if he had gone to trial and lost nor do I know what other options he had; I practice in California. It is possible that even if he had lost at trial that his jail, prison or youth authority time would not have been too high, but if he would have been required to be a lifetime sex offender registrant, that is no joke. Registered sex offenders have an extremely difficult time getting jobs (people with long theft/theft-related records have an easier time) and a very difficult time renting an apartment. As life moves on, a lot of them end up homeless and broken. I see it all the time. It is one of the worst (but often well-earned) consequences of our criminal and juvenile justice system.
2) #1) being said, I have also signed up plenty of defendants who will swear to their dying day that they are innocent but the evidence shows and my conclusion is that they are not. There are far more of them -- far, far, far more of them --than people who are innocent but take a plea deal. Some of them even tell me that they will take the deal just to "get it over with." Really? You'll sign up for a 6 year stretch just to get it over with? But they do. Pathological liars are commonplace in the justice system. (I am not calling Luke a pathological liar.)
3) I don't know whether Luke did the things to which he admitted, but I tend to believe that he did. His admission is compelling but weighing more in my mind is his broken relationship with his brother. It takes a lot to no longer speak to your brother. Additionally, one has to have a serious hate on to accuse someone of the crimes to which Luke has admitted.
Contradictory evidence: Polygraphs? They mean nothing to me; the reason that they are generally excluded from evidence is that they are unreliable, both ways. The thing that makes me doubt my conclusion the most is that there are professionals who have worked with Luke and have said that they doubt it ever happened. For that reason I would not convict Luke at a criminal trial where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof but I would find him liable in a civil trial where the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," which is often described as 50% plus a peppercorn.
This conclusion is based solely on the articles that people have posted here and a few I have read beyond. It should be obvious (but it is not to some people) and it should go without saying (but it can't to some people) that if Luke actually went to trial and I was a juror, I would enter the trial with no conclusion in mind and would have no idea what my vote would be until I had heard all of the evidence AND (this is the part that most non-lawyers forget) I had the opportunity to debate the matter with the other 11 jurors. I have had trials in which the jury reached a conclusion that was opposite of what the alternate jurors (who did hear all of the evidence but did not debate it with other jurors) concluded.
4) Regardless of whether Luke did the things to which he pled, he should have never publicly stated that he did not. If he was unwilling to admit that he did so, then he should have remained silent. Now, a significant chunk of the population is publicly branding him --excoriating him!-- as a liar.
5) If Luke did do the things to which he admitted, he still should be allowed to move on from them and pursue the highest goals in life that he can achieve. These were juvenile transgressions and there is a reason that the justice system treats juveniles differently from adults and gives juveniles a much greater chance to move on from the wrongdoing. Luke should be able to become the best baseball player that he can be.
6) Unfortunately for Luke, our society is not a by-and-large forgiving one. We have one of the harshest justice systems in the developed world and I believe that it is a reflection of the great majority of the population which does not forgive, does not forget, and likes to see wrongdoers punished severely. The wrath of that unforgiving society is now laying its full vengeance on a man who did something wrong as a teenager and has now done just about everything right since then. By all evidence, Luke has taken great efforts to develop himself as a good person and become an outstanding member of society. That's not good enough for our society. The self-righteous among us do not have the ability to recognize that good people can do bad things.
Our media loves to pile on that s%#t. There are programs (TMZ, for example) whose whole (or, at least, biggest) purpose is to lay the hate down on celebrities and people who become celebrities due to some transgression. Our politicians love to slam the wrongdoers. Our general population has a lot of moral outrage and likes to shun wrongdoers from society (and then wonders why they fail to integrate themselves back in).
7) Consequently, it does not surprise me even slightly that MLB will give Luke no shot. The owners and the league administrators are well aware of the backlash that will happen to the team that drafts or signs him and they want no part of it. Professional sports is already taking a hit from the ever-more reported crimes of the players, and there's probably not a whole lot more that they will take.
Luke's getting way worse than he deserves and society is condemning a man to being less than he can be. It sucks.
That's my take. Also, because you are in the business and knowing what you know, if a Luke hires you to defend him in California, does he walk? |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jun 7, 2018 17:08:24 GMT -8
I haven't weighed in much on LH's situation. I'll take a crack and let it go:
1) People who think innocent people never plead guilty are truly and phenomenally ignorant on that topic. Happens a fair amount. I am a criminal defense attorney who handles ~100 cases/year and I can tell you that I have helped innocent people sign a change of plea form to plead guilty in order to avoid what could be heavy consequences should they lose at trial. Sometimes the judges know it and sometimes even the unscrupulous DA's know it, but it happens. It's no joke when you are facing 20+ years in prison and the DA's office is offering six months or even credit for time served and probation. It sucks. It sucks being the defendant and it sucks being their attorney because you know the case can be won and your client has to "admit" to something he/she did not do, but when serious prison time and/or other, awful consequences loom, sometimes it's best to turn tail. Any criminal lawyer who tells you different is lying.
In Luke's case: I don't know what the consequences are in Washington if he had gone to trial and lost nor do I know what other options he had; I practice in California. It is possible that even if he had lost at trial that his jail, prison or youth authority time would not have been too high, but if he would have been required to be a lifetime sex offender registrant, that is no joke. Registered sex offenders have an extremely difficult time getting jobs (people with long theft/theft-related records have an easier time) and a very difficult time renting an apartment. As life moves on, a lot of them end up homeless and broken. I see it all the time. It is one of the worst (but often well-earned) consequences of our criminal and juvenile justice system.
2) #1) being said, I have also signed up plenty of defendants who will swear to their dying day that they are innocent but the evidence shows and my conclusion is that they are not. There are far more of them -- far, far, far more of them --than people who are innocent but take a plea deal. Some of them even tell me that they will take the deal just to "get it over with." Really? You'll sign up for a 6 year stretch just to get it over with? But they do. Pathological liars are commonplace in the justice system. (I am not calling Luke a pathological liar.)
3) I don't know whether Luke did the things to which he admitted, but I tend to believe that he did. His admission is compelling but weighing more in my mind is his broken relationship with his brother. It takes a lot to no longer speak to your brother. Additionally, one has to have a serious hate on to accuse someone of the crimes to which Luke has admitted.
Contradictory evidence: Polygraphs? They mean nothing to me; the reason that they are generally excluded from evidence is that they are unreliable, both ways. The thing that makes me doubt my conclusion the most is that there are professionals who have worked with Luke and have said that they doubt it ever happened. For that reason I would not convict Luke at a criminal trial where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof but I would find him liable in a civil trial where the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," which is often described as 50% plus a peppercorn.
This conclusion is based solely on the articles that people have posted here and a few I have read beyond. It should be obvious (but it is not to some people) and it should go without saying (but it can't to some people) that if Luke actually went to trial and I was a juror, I would enter the trial with no conclusion in mind and would have no idea what my vote would be until I had heard all of the evidence AND (this is the part that most non-lawyers forget) I had the opportunity to debate the matter with the other 11 jurors. I have had trials in which the jury reached a conclusion that was opposite of what the alternate jurors (who did hear all of the evidence but did not debate it with other jurors) concluded.
4) Regardless of whether Luke did the things to which he pled, he should have never publicly stated that he did not. If he was unwilling to admit that he did so, then he should have remained silent. Now, a significant chunk of the population is publicly branding him --excoriating him!-- as a liar.
5) If Luke did do the things to which he admitted, he still should be allowed to move on from them and pursue the highest goals in life that he can achieve. These were juvenile transgressions and there is a reason that the justice system treats juveniles differently from adults and gives juveniles a much greater chance to move on from the wrongdoing. Luke should be able to become the best baseball player that he can be.
6) Unfortunately for Luke, our society is not a by-and-large forgiving one. We have one of the harshest justice systems in the developed world and I believe that it is a reflection of the great majority of the population which does not forgive, does not forget, and likes to see wrongdoers punished severely. The wrath of that unforgiving society is now laying its full vengeance on a man who did something wrong as a teenager and has now done just about everything right since then. By all evidence, Luke has taken great efforts to develop himself as a good person and become an outstanding member of society. That's not good enough for our society. The self-righteous among us do not have the ability to recognize that good people can do bad things.
Our media loves to pile on that s%#t. There are programs (TMZ, for example) whose whole (or, at least, biggest) purpose is to lay the hate down on celebrities and people who become celebrities due to some transgression. Our politicians love to slam the wrongdoers. Our general population has a lot of moral outrage and likes to shun wrongdoers from society (and then wonders why they fail to integrate themselves back in).
7) Consequently, it does not surprise me even slightly that MLB will give Luke no shot. The owners and the league administrators are well aware of the backlash that will happen to the team that drafts or signs him and they want no part of it. Professional sports is already taking a hit from the ever-more reported crimes of the players, and there's probably not a whole lot more that they will take.
Luke's getting way worse than he deserves and society is condemning a man to being less than he can be. It sucks.
That's my take. Great take! I agree with most of it up until the end. As William Munny says in Unforgiven: We all get what we get. I may be a cynic, but deserve has nothing to do with it. What is galling to me, is that, if adjudicated guilty, Luke only would have had to serve 40 weeks in juvi. His record would have been cleared five years after he was released, same as if he pled (well, plus the 40 weeks). I get people pleading down to avoid facing 5-10, but 40 weeks? He wound up trading the threat of 40 weeks for millions of dollars. (Of course, who is to say that Oregon State recruits him, if Luke is on probation or fresh out of juvi?) By professionals, are you talking about the one court-ordered therapist, the probation officer, or the judge? As far as I know, none of the three opined as to whether or not he was guilty, merely that he was a good kid and stuck to his story. If baseball does not work out, I would seriously consider changing my name, if I was Luke. As far as 40 weeks...to a kid, that can seem a lifetime, especially with the idea that it could possibly, in his mind, threaten or curtail his ability to play high school sports. I met a Reed College graduate who wanted to go into teaching and was offered a job to teach for one year at a struggling high school (I think it was in Houston, but could be mistaken). She had a lot of positives about the idea: experience for her career and experience for life, an opportunity to get paid to go somewhere new. But the idea of doing that for a whole year seemed like eternity. I was in my late 30s at the time, and it was very difficult for this 22 year old to let go of all the other opportunities that she may miss if she spent an entire year! away doing this job. I can only imagine that it is even tougher for a 16 year old.
By professionals...I thought I had read that Luke had worked with several professionals as he served out the five years following his admission and that some of those professionals raised doubts as to his culpability.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jun 7, 2018 17:15:17 GMT -8
I haven't weighed in much on LH's situation. I'll take a crack and let it go:
1) People who think innocent people never plead guilty are truly and phenomenally ignorant on that topic. Happens a fair amount. I am a criminal defense attorney who handles ~100 cases/year and I can tell you that I have helped innocent people sign a change of plea form to plead guilty in order to avoid what could be heavy consequences should they lose at trial. Sometimes the judges know it and sometimes even the unscrupulous DA's know it, but it happens. It's no joke when you are facing 20+ years in prison and the DA's office is offering six months or even credit for time served and probation. It sucks. It sucks being the defendant and it sucks being their attorney because you know the case can be won and your client has to "admit" to something he/she did not do, but when serious prison time and/or other, awful consequences loom, sometimes it's best to turn tail. Any criminal lawyer who tells you different is lying.
In Luke's case: I don't know what the consequences are in Washington if he had gone to trial and lost nor do I know what other options he had; I practice in California. It is possible that even if he had lost at trial that his jail, prison or youth authority time would not have been too high, but if he would have been required to be a lifetime sex offender registrant, that is no joke. Registered sex offenders have an extremely difficult time getting jobs (people with long theft/theft-related records have an easier time) and a very difficult time renting an apartment. As life moves on, a lot of them end up homeless and broken. I see it all the time. It is one of the worst (but often well-earned) consequences of our criminal and juvenile justice system.
2) #1) being said, I have also signed up plenty of defendants who will swear to their dying day that they are innocent but the evidence shows and my conclusion is that they are not. There are far more of them -- far, far, far more of them --than people who are innocent but take a plea deal. Some of them even tell me that they will take the deal just to "get it over with." Really? You'll sign up for a 6 year stretch just to get it over with? But they do. Pathological liars are commonplace in the justice system. (I am not calling Luke a pathological liar.)
3) I don't know whether Luke did the things to which he admitted, but I tend to believe that he did. His admission is compelling but weighing more in my mind is his broken relationship with his brother. It takes a lot to no longer speak to your brother. Additionally, one has to have a serious hate on to accuse someone of the crimes to which Luke has admitted.
Contradictory evidence: Polygraphs? They mean nothing to me; the reason that they are generally excluded from evidence is that they are unreliable, both ways. The thing that makes me doubt my conclusion the most is that there are professionals who have worked with Luke and have said that they doubt it ever happened. For that reason I would not convict Luke at a criminal trial where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof but I would find him liable in a civil trial where the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," which is often described as 50% plus a peppercorn.
This conclusion is based solely on the articles that people have posted here and a few I have read beyond. It should be obvious (but it is not to some people) and it should go without saying (but it can't to some people) that if Luke actually went to trial and I was a juror, I would enter the trial with no conclusion in mind and would have no idea what my vote would be until I had heard all of the evidence AND (this is the part that most non-lawyers forget) I had the opportunity to debate the matter with the other 11 jurors. I have had trials in which the jury reached a conclusion that was opposite of what the alternate jurors (who did hear all of the evidence but did not debate it with other jurors) concluded.
4) Regardless of whether Luke did the things to which he pled, he should have never publicly stated that he did not. If he was unwilling to admit that he did so, then he should have remained silent. Now, a significant chunk of the population is publicly branding him --excoriating him!-- as a liar.
5) If Luke did do the things to which he admitted, he still should be allowed to move on from them and pursue the highest goals in life that he can achieve. These were juvenile transgressions and there is a reason that the justice system treats juveniles differently from adults and gives juveniles a much greater chance to move on from the wrongdoing. Luke should be able to become the best baseball player that he can be.
6) Unfortunately for Luke, our society is not a by-and-large forgiving one. We have one of the harshest justice systems in the developed world and I believe that it is a reflection of the great majority of the population which does not forgive, does not forget, and likes to see wrongdoers punished severely. The wrath of that unforgiving society is now laying its full vengeance on a man who did something wrong as a teenager and has now done just about everything right since then. By all evidence, Luke has taken great efforts to develop himself as a good person and become an outstanding member of society. That's not good enough for our society. The self-righteous among us do not have the ability to recognize that good people can do bad things.
Our media loves to pile on that s%#t. There are programs (TMZ, for example) whose whole (or, at least, biggest) purpose is to lay the hate down on celebrities and people who become celebrities due to some transgression. Our politicians love to slam the wrongdoers. Our general population has a lot of moral outrage and likes to shun wrongdoers from society (and then wonders why they fail to integrate themselves back in).
7) Consequently, it does not surprise me even slightly that MLB will give Luke no shot. The owners and the league administrators are well aware of the backlash that will happen to the team that drafts or signs him and they want no part of it. Professional sports is already taking a hit from the ever-more reported crimes of the players, and there's probably not a whole lot more that they will take.
Luke's getting way worse than he deserves and society is condemning a man to being less than he can be. It sucks.
That's my take. Also, because you are in the business and knowing what you know, if a Luke hires you to defend him in California, does he walk? I have no idea if he'd walk or if I'd do worse than his hired lawyer. Not only do I not know all the facts of his case, but a lot depends on witnesses. I have had many a case that I expected to turn out one way but then when I saw the appeal/lack of appeal of the witnesses, I had to readjust expectations. It is a caution I give to most of my clients. I have had many people tell me have awful a person is, that the person comes off as a liar, or a junkie, or a psycho, or some other bad thing and then they take the stand and turn out to be a great witness. It really can make or break a case.
I also don't practice juvenile law, just adult criminal law. The closest I come to practicing juvenile law is when I get into fights on whether a sealed file should be opened. But adjudicating charges for a juvenile? I have no idea. It is very important, as a lawyer (aren't you one? if so, then you know this) to not only know what you can to your best ability but also to admit when you do not know something. And juvenile law...I don't know much.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 17:28:36 GMT -8
Great take! I agree with most of it up until the end. As William Munny says in Unforgiven: We all get what we get. I may be a cynic, but deserve has nothing to do with it. What is galling to me, is that, if adjudicated guilty, Luke only would have had to serve 40 weeks in juvi. His record would have been cleared five years after he was released, same as if he pled (well, plus the 40 weeks). I get people pleading down to avoid facing 5-10, but 40 weeks? He wound up trading the threat of 40 weeks for millions of dollars. (Of course, who is to say that Oregon State recruits him, if Luke is on probation or fresh out of juvi?) By professionals, are you talking about the one court-ordered therapist, the probation officer, or the judge? As far as I know, none of the three opined as to whether or not he was guilty, merely that he was a good kid and stuck to his story. If baseball does not work out, I would seriously consider changing my name, if I was Luke. As far as 40 weeks...to a kid, that can seem a lifetime, especially with the idea that it could possibly, in his mind, threaten or curtail his ability to play high school sports. I met a Reed College graduate who wanted to go into teaching and was offered a job to teach for one year at a struggling high school (I think it was in Houston, but could be mistaken). She had a lot of positives about the idea: experience for her career and experience for life, an opportunity to get paid to go somewhere new. But the idea of doing that for a whole year seemed like eternity. I was in my late 30s at the time, and it was very difficult for this 22 year old to let go of all the other opportunities that she may miss if she spent an entire year! away doing this job. I can only imagine that it is even tougher for a 16 year old.
By professionals...I thought I had read that Luke had worked with several professionals as he served out the five years following his admission and that some of those professionals raised doubts as to his culpability.
I hear you about 40 weeks. I had never read anything about a professional weighing in on his ultimate culpability. I agree that that would be powerful evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbeav on Jun 7, 2018 17:32:29 GMT -8
I believe a big motivation in not going to trial was to save his niece, his brother's daughter, from having to testify to a judge and get asked very difficult questions. I believe him when he says pleading guilty was the best way forward at the time not just for him, but for his whole family...
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 17:33:17 GMT -8
Also, because you are in the business and knowing what you know, if a Luke hires you to defend him in California, does he walk? I have no idea if he'd walk or if I'd do worse than his hired lawyer. Not only do I not know all the facts of his case, but a lot depends on witnesses. I have had many a case that I expected to turn out one way but then when I saw the appeal/lack of appeal of the witnesses, I had to readjust expectations. It is a caution I give to most of my clients. I have had many people tell me have awful a person is, that the person comes off as a liar, or a junkie, or a psycho, or some other bad thing and then they take the stand and turn out to be a great witness. It really can make or break a case.
I also don't practice juvenile law, just adult criminal law. The closest I come to practicing juvenile law is when I get into fights on whether a sealed file should be opened. But adjudicating charges for a juvenile? I have no idea. It is very important, as a lawyer (aren't you one? if so, then you know this) to not only know what you can to your best ability but also to admit when you do not know something. And juvenile law...I don't know much.
Yeah, I am an attorney. I have had one criminal defense case in the past 11 years. And before that, I was working on the other side for the district attorney's office. I must admit that I have never had a true juvenile case. Maybe I am assuming too much that the process would be similar to a criminal proceeding, though. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2018 17:42:50 GMT -8
I believe a big motivation in not going to trial was to save his niece, his brother's daughter, from having to testify to a judge and get asked very difficult questions. I believe him when he says pleading guilty was the best way forward at the time not just for him, but for his whole family... I have never actually heard Luke speak on any of this, just the printed word. Pleading guilty probably was what was best for Josh and Josh's daughter. If Luke was not guilty, what Luke did was very heroic, to be sure. However, I tend to think that it is more likely that Luke molested his niece and pled to avoid the 40 weeks in juvi. That best fits the known facts, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jun 7, 2018 21:09:57 GMT -8
I believe a big motivation in not going to trial was to save his niece, his brother's daughter, from having to testify to a judge and get asked very difficult questions. I believe him when he says pleading guilty was the best way forward at the time not just for him, but for his whole family... I have never actually heard Luke speak on any of this, just the printed word. Pleading guilty probably was what was best for Josh and Josh's daughter. If Luke was not guilty, what Luke did was very heroic, to be sure. However, I tend to think that it is more likely that Luke molested his niece and pled to avoid the 40 weeks in juvi. That best fits the known facts, in my opinion. If Luke pleaded to “do what was best for his brother and niece,” then why does his brother still not talk to him?” Is it better for his niece to tell the New York Times she is a liar now? These are the things that keep me up at night. All these posts about forgiving a 15 year old for his mistakes and letting him get on with his life....I can’t do that if he’s still maintaining his innocence. There’s nothing to forgive him for if he truly is innocent, and I won’t forgive him if he did do it and continues to perpetuate a lie in the hopes of getting paid to play baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jun 7, 2018 21:13:58 GMT -8
4) Regardless of whether Luke did the things to which he pled, he should have never publicly stated that he did not. If he was unwilling to admit that he did so, then he should have remained silent. Now, a significant chunk of the population is publicly branding him --excoriating him!-- as a liar.
I don't quite get why this is your conclusion. If it is well known by anyone familiar with criminal law that people often plead guilty to crimes they did not commit to avoid the chance of a bad outcome at trial, why would anyone look twice at someone who said that's exactly what they did? SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jun 8, 2018 7:21:30 GMT -8
So if the brother "leans" towards believing his daughter, who he's seen on an almost daily basis for the last seven years, why are so many people so convinced that Luke is innocent?
|
|
