Rowan's stepfather, 25-year-old David Spears and his friend 32-year-old Chris Collings were brought into court under heavy guard wearing wrist and ankle shackles.
Spears and Collings are charged with one count each of first-degree murder, forcible rape and statutory rape.
Rowan's mother sat in the front row of the gallery flanked by several friends and family members. She did not speak during the brief hearing and was escorted out through the court chambers by the prosecutor afterward.
Spears and Collings are being held without bond.
I don't mind the post, but I do mind the header. This is said like it's some horrible, horrible disservice, that they are obviously guilty so why not just throw them in jail without any representation. What the hell are you thinking? Have you read the Constitution? It says all people have a right to fair and equal access under the law. And yes, that means the poor, the uneducated and even the guilty. Sure, it is all but certain that these two drunk hicks killed that poor little girl. But if we are going to have a justice system worth anything, we must make sure even scum like them has the same rights.
ReplyDeleteIt is the state's responsibility, as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 40 years ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, to provide adequate legal representation when the accused is unable to pay for it their self. Yes, it may cause our stomachs to churn thinking of scum like this getting free legal help, but this is the only way to maintain the dignity of our justice system. Our constitution promises equality in our legal system for all, but when we start denying certain individuals of competent legal assistance because we perceive their guilt or they are poor, our form of justice will be no better than it is in such tumultuous countries as Pakistan. There is also a serious public safety issue with denying legal help to those who cannot afford it. Each year hundreds of innocent people are sentenced to jail because they did not have a competent attorney to represent them. And each time that happens, the real perpetrator is left to roam the streets. The public defense system improves our society, it doesn't hurt, however much we might recoil at the upfront costs.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteI do have to agree with Jeff. What's your point? Do you believe these guys shouldn't have representation?
I am a firm believer in our system and that all people deserve representation. That being said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with hating to see taxpayer money spent on defending these people.
ReplyDeleteMethinks you are trying to have it both ways. You can't want them to have representation and at the same time bemoan the state having to provide representation. It's one or the other. Either you think that representation is so important that the government should mandate and fund it, or you think that having attorney is the privilege of those with money.
ReplyDeleteYou can root like hell for these bastards to be found guilty. But you just can't whine that they get the same shake everyone else gets before we send them off to be raped hourly by Bubba & co. :)
I am certainly not trying to have it both ways. I can defend the First Amendment, while totally despising the use that some people make of it because I am aware that the First Amendment is protecting all of us when it protects despicable people. At the same time, I appreciate that everyone has the right to counsel. It is one of the things that makes our country great, but it is perfectly logical to despise the fact that my money has to go to despicable individuals such as these in order to maintain my rights. Disagree with me all you want, but there are no ulterior motives. I resent taxpayer money being used for Spears and Collings, and would like to know eventually just how much of it is used, but I recognize the necessity.
ReplyDelete