Diane Diamond’s journalism has always been slanted towards victim advocates. Years ago when the Michael Jackson case was going on (which he was acquitted of), she was persecuting him in the press. I don’t know what her backstory is but she would be pretty hard to sway, in my opinion.

Diane Diamond is a syndicated columnist which means she is not under the control of the Albuquerque Journal. Her column is published in many newspapers across the United States. She also appears regularly on many media platforms other than just print. Her website describes her as “a modern day journalist who defies a category…”

Her reach and influence is substantial which is the reason I wrote what I did. She will have tremendous influence in terms of the ongoing campaign to abolish the statute of limitations.

Actually, if the client doesn’t intend to go to trial, mitigating circumstances should begin in the negotiating phase with a prosecutor to try to get a lesser charge or get a charge dropped. Lots of defense lawyers wait until sentencing, which is wrong.

Statute of Limitations are in place for a reason. You can read about them online and should left in place. However, if you are like the Congressman in Pennsylvania who wants to extend them to 50 years, you are only inviting trouble as his fellow Congressman realize and state in opposition.

Stating mitigating circumstances in sentencing hearings is the role of the defense atty and thus should be continued. No reason not have the mitigating circumstances stated.

Nevada,

You and Larry certainly have more compassion for this man than do I. I aspire to be as forgiving as you are. I do agree he must have endured tremendous trauma in having to hide and even deny his identity, through his childhood, his adolescence and into his professional life as an adult. But out of that torment, confusion and pain came the need to oppress others for the same behavior HE HIMSELF engaged in. What he did didn’t just effect a few people but hundreds of thousands and arguably millions of people.

You know, it’s the same reason I don’t have pity for Hitler. He had one testicle, you know. It’s true. I haven’t researched his life but he might have had a difficult childhood. I don’t care. The bad outweighs whatever hardship he endured. I’m not comparing Hastert to Hitler in proportionality but on principal. Anyone who uses negative life experiences in a hypocritical way to justify oppression and bigotry which than enacts laws that help transform a segment of the population into untouchables, I cannot forgive. Do I wish Mr. Hastert had lived in an era where he could have been more open about himself? Of course. Do I wish he had never abused anyone (assuming he did). That goes without saying. But to KNOWINGLY effect the lives of millions of individuals for conduct that YOU YOURSELF are engaging in?? That’s a hard one for me to forgive.

Ooops. Paul made the comment above, not Larry. I must have put in Larry by mistake in thinking about Larry.

With that said, I still believe he’s guilty as sin. All that time he was oppressing us with his tough talk in getting this law passed, he was acting with less of a conscience than 99% of us. That’s what burns me up.

I wish I could disagree with you because we’re talking about Speaker Hastert, but I can’t. I personally would like Mr. Hastert to experience the AWA since he helped to create it. But if Due Process and the Statute of limitations is ignored for certain people (even one’s we don’t like) we all lose those protections. Crimes that fall outside the statute of limitations should not be prosecuted, even for Dennis Hastert. End of story.