I don't know what to hope for in terms of trial.
Part of me really wants to see him pull the insanity card, just because it would be a lot easier on everyone.
But the other part of me wonders, he didn't take responsibility for his actions for 18 years...why should he be allowed to take partial responsibility now, after the fact for the purpose of trying to lessen the import of what he did.
(I know the plea is technically still not guilty, but it is an admission that the person did commit these acts.)
This is one of those where the massive amount of rights and liberties given a suspect disgust me. There is no reasonable doubt and no mitigating circumstance...just lock him up. Forget the trial and the endless appeals and the concern of violating the Garrido's rights. Just lock them in a shed until they die of old age. IMO.
Loved this post as it illustrates a lot of the problems with our judicial system. To me this case is cut and dried. Defense attorneys will do their job and defend the g's to the best of their ability. It is their job, what they are trained to do.
This having been said, there needs to be reform in our judicial system. Yes, everyone deserves a trial and if there is substantial evidence that information was not presented that could clear someone or if there are blatant errors in the execution of the trial, then a person should be allowed to defend themselves, in an attempt to clear themselves of wrongdoing. The person who is found guilty by a jury of their peers, has enough evidence against them, has testimony from the victim and witnesses, should:
1) Not be given more rights than the victim(s) of their crime. In a courtroom the rights of the accused are held in much higher regard then are the rights of the victim or the victims family. The defense team can slander the victim, without providing any proof to their statements, usually without reprisal, whereas the accused persons past offenses can not be mentioned. In the sentencing phase the criminals family can give any testimony they choose, but the victim witness statements are sanctioned to protect the accused. This has got to be equalized, in my opinion only.
2) Should not be allowed to muck up the judicial system with frivolous lawsuits without merit, to try and get reduced sentences, additional rights or a change in what evidence was/shouldn't have been allowed during their trial. The prisoner and his defense team had the right to object to any information, evidence or witness statements presented the first time around!
3) Should serve out their entire length of sentencing. There is a HUGE need for truth in sentencing. How can a criminal who broke the law be released early for "good behavior"? Kind of an ironic idea considering they are behind bars during that period of time. It doesn't show if a person is rehabilitated or less inclined to repeat their offenses. It only shows that a person can control themselves in a controlled environment. Especially, but not inclusive to. child SO and child preditors.
Everyone deserves their day in court, fair representation, a right to a trial by a jury of their peers, the best and most thorough access to the latest technology to prove their innocence. After that has occurred and if they are found guilty, those rights should end, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Reform the system to protect the rights of victims and potential future victims.