:P I should preface this by saying we did NOT find him to be an SVP, which as I understand it is fairly rare for a jury to do. I said some more on this in my intro, too.
I think you're in the clear. It really was a fascinating peek into the legal justice system and how it manipulates psychology and the DSM IV for its own purposes-- a lot of morality etc. Double jeopardy is illegal, people! Just because the DA wants rapists locked up for good does not mean it is legal to do so. The department of mental health in California clearly is training people in very specific ways, but they don't rely on much actual current research in the field of psychiatry. It takes years for them to be strong-handed into integrating things they do not want to hear. Not surprising, I guess.
We had the Dean of the University of San Diego Law School on the jury, btw. His take was that the DA put on a "very muddled case." Later, he went, "Sometimes that's the best tactic to use -- confuse the jury into believing you, because if you make everything very clear, you'll lose the case."
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 04:07 pm (UTC)I think you're in the clear. It really was a fascinating peek into the legal justice system and how it manipulates psychology and the DSM IV for its own purposes-- a lot of morality etc. Double jeopardy is illegal, people! Just because the DA wants rapists locked up for good does not mean it is legal to do so. The department of mental health in California clearly is training people in very specific ways, but they don't rely on much actual current research in the field of psychiatry. It takes years for them to be strong-handed into integrating things they do not want to hear. Not surprising, I guess.
We had the Dean of the University of San Diego Law School on the jury, btw. His take was that the DA put on a "very muddled case." Later, he went, "Sometimes that's the best tactic to use -- confuse the jury into believing you, because if you make everything very clear, you'll lose the case."