Letters to the Editor

‘Juvenile’ reporting of sensitive issues

Child abuse is a subject that elicits strong emotions. For an adult to cause intentional harm to any child is particularly because children are by nature weaker, more naive, more trusting and less able to defend themselves than adults are. As a community, we focus our attention annually during the month of April on recognizing and preventing child abuse. This is an important cause that deserves our special and heightened efforts.

How we address the problem of child abuse says a lot about who we are.

Lately, the subject has been in the media daily. Some articles have been informative, such as those about the statistics on child abuse; the reporting on a recent case in court, however, was unfair and inaccurate. Sensationalism sells newspaper and gamers viewers to the televised news. It makes for good political sound bytes. It does little to help the community appropriately face the problem.

In the case of Manju Pandey, the media reporting was noticeably slanted toward the prosecution and against Ms. Pandey. For example, a local newspaper reported only the prosecution side of the case on both Tuesday and Wednesday. The local newspaper failed to mention the defense case or the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, namely that the child’s own treating doctor found no signs of abuse.

The trial was further sensationalized for a trial date that coincided with the start of April, child abuse awareness month. A noted Senator attended the opening day of the hearing; there were dozens of children brought to the court room; and the Division of Youth Services later in the proceedings had representatives handing out buttons in the courtroom as part of their campaign against child abuse. Ms. Pandey was made the target of the community’s anger about child abuse.

Despite the yellow journalism and sensational politicking, the justice system’s strength empowered cooler, rational thought to prevail. Judge Onerheim showed remarkable courage in rendering her judgment. We can be determines whether a child has been abused and whether the accused is guilty.

In Friday’s issue of a local newspaper, another article reports on the Senator’s outrage that Ms. Pandey was found not guilty. The Senator impugns the integrity of our judicial system. His statements may make the news, but they do little to make the community aware of what is child abuse and what we can do about it.

As a basic concept, child abuse means harm to a child, and is usually categorized as physical, psychological or sexual. The person who commits must have intentionally acted. The degree of harm also be unacceptable; for example, in the Commonwealth parents do have the right to use corporal punishment as discipline.

In our zeal to protect our children, we do not need to scourge innocent people or make scape goats out of anyone. We don’t need to be so jaundiced that we see ordinary actions as child abuse.

We do need to use our righteous anger against child abuse to prosecute to the fullest those who are endangering our youth. We need to prosecute the men who make young girls pregnant. We need laws and regulations that require specific types of data banks that can be easily checked for clearance before someone is hired as a child care provider. We need to promote more programs for youth and their parents, like the recent Mock Trial Competition and the Read-A-thon Week kick-off event, so parents have more opportunities to interact in positive ways with their children.

We can, as a community, make a difference. Not with sensationalism or political grand-standing. Not with finding scape-goats. But with reason and balanced judgment directing our dedication and energies.

Jane Mack

A mother in pain

I write in response to Attorney Steve Nutting. I note that it seems somewhat unbecoming for a member of the legal profession to be essentially continuing to “try” this case in public by publishing his personal views on it. In saying, “this case” I refer to the filing of criminal charges by the Office of the Attorney General with regards to my baby daughter’s treatment while in the care of a trusted caregiver.

First, he made reference to “the mob” who attended at court for “the political spectacle”. “Mob”? This is the first time I have heard my friends and family referred to this way. I have to ask, how dare you suggest or even think that the presence of my family, my sibling’s children and friends at the court was organized to improperly influence the court? The people present at the court are my family, my sibling’s children and friends. people who stood by us during our time of trials and are still standing by us especially after the disgusting verdict rendered by the court. I was so shocked with the judge’s decision, but I have to say. that I am even more shocked that an attorney as brilliant as yourself can be so heartless.

The last time I checked, the US judicial system permitted and welcomed the public into court. This is one of the fundamental ways in which we can ensure that justice is served. Because the public saw what went on in court that day, and because the Constitution permits us to speak freely, I can safely say that many believe that the interests of justice were not served that day.

Second, Mr. Nutting makes reference to the acquittal of an innocent woman. This is odd language indeed from a seasoned member of the CNMI bar. No one ever said Ms. Pandy was “innocent”. What was found, from the bench (not from a panel of jurors) is that the accused was “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. There’s a big difference Mr. Nutting.

Third, Mr. Nutting refers to “the experts testimony of Dr. Laura Post, an eminent medical doctor and psychiatrist”. That Dr. Post is a psychiatrists I agree. The rest guilds the lilly does it not? In my opinion, Dr. Post is not preeminent. It is an unfortunate fact that the prosecution curiously failed to even attempt to discredit this so-called expert witness or to bring in an expert of its own.

Fourth, it is at best rude and at worst improper for an attorney to call into question the impartiality of a judge based on what he perceives as a public effort to influence the judge. Mr. Nutting, you deserved to be chastised. Given the outcome of this case, it is nothing short of remarkable that you again raise this issue.

Fifth, I take exception to your criticism of my employer, Senator Pete Reyes. This incident has been a huge source of trauma and grief to me. Senator Reyes has been very supportive of me and my family throughout this ordeal. I have been exhausted through an inability to sleep. I have had difficulty concentrating and I have had the ongoing concern of wondering if my baby is safe at home while I work so that I can provide for her and pay bills.

For me, nothing is more compelling than the safety and welfare of our children. I can only hope that the case involving my baby girl will raise greater public awareness on this issue. What I fail to understand is how it can be a bad thing for a legislator to take an interest in the welfare of children. Please forgive him for being human and for having a heart.

Finally, I comment on Mr. Nutting’s misrepresentations pertaining to Dr. Claassens’ testimony. Mr. Nutting in his letter states that Dr. Claassens testified that the child was without any observable injury. As I recall, much of the discussion centered on how the observable injury my daughter presented with in the emergency room was acquired. She was in fact injured. But this is neither here nor there. A victim does not need to bear observable wounds for there to have been an assault as defined in the criminal code. Mr. Nutting knows this too.

I repeat for the record – Your client was found NOT GUILTY, she was not found to be INNOCENT.

Glenna Sakisat Palacios

Who let the dogs out?

It seems to me that everywhere I go on this beautiful island, the stray dogs seem to ruin the atmosphere of a tranquil little yet bustling island. The “boonies dogs” are way out of control and the answers to my questions about these filthy eyesores is “shut your window and turn on the ac” to muffle the sound of the boonie dogs barking at all hours of the night .

Saipan has a problem , a big one at that . These dogs are dirty. And to be honest, I was attacked a few times while jogging (which I don’t do anymore). I work in the tourism business and the people that come here “freak out” about these dogs.

Furthermore, a friend of mine told me that sometimes they eat these dogs. I did some research on the subject and came across a few law about these dogs . I hope maybe someone here will get out of his or hers office and hop in their new Nissan government pick up trucks and do something about it.

Erik from Saipan

Via email