Safety
Oh, no.From MSNBC
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11500825/):
NORWALK, Ohio - A couple accused of forcing some of their 11 adopted, special-needs children to sleep in cages pleaded not guilty Wednesday to child endangering and other crimes.
...The Gravelles are accused of forcing the children to sleep in beds enclosed with wire and wood and rigged with alarms. They were charged last week with child endangerment, falsifying adoption applications and lying under oath when being qualified for adoption funding.
They say they believed the enclosures were needed to ensure the children were safe at their home in nearby Wakeman. The youngsters, ages 1 to 15, have behavioral and psychological problems related to illnesses such as fetal alcohol syndrome and a disorder that involves eating nonfood items.
Now I don't mean to make light of this, because because this story made me sick just to read about it, but there's something I don't understand. Every time one of these cases comes up, which seems to be about every six months, the defense lawyer says it's a "safety" issue.
Safety?
What legal strategy guide is he referring to--The Big Book of Legal Defense Strategies That Have Never Worked, Vol. 2? Has anyone ever won a case like this using SAFETY as the the defense?
Listen, Michael and Sharen Gravelle, you're going to do some serious prison time. Pack up your shit. Report to your cell. Which, if you think about it, is a cage, really.
It's a safety issue. I'm sure you understand.
<< Home