Man accused of sex acts with a toddler
A 40-year-old Batavia man is accused of committing sexual acts on a 2-year-old over a three-month period.
James Little Jr. is being charged with three counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree.
Batavia PD released no further information on the case.
Little is scheduled to reappear in Batavia City Court on April 18.
Remember what I said about castration and banishment to a small island in the north Atlantic? I have a better idea. We can just drop them onto a giant iceberg with shorts, a tee shirt, flipflops, a case of Jolt cola and one farmer match. If they can make it to land successfully, they get to live.
Castration makes to much sense! I cant think of anyone I know that hasn't said one time or another about "cutting it off" or "castration" but banishment is a good add-on but like I said it makes to much sense to do it.....
Tom, I doubt castration helps at all other than to appease the desire for retribution and vengeance. I just figured that if they were on the iceberg, they could sit on the case of jolt cola so they'd have something dry to sit on and they could light their shorts and tee shirt on fire (while still clothed) to keep warm, briefly. They'd have the jolt cola to stay hydrated and the ice to soothe their burns.
make it a small iceberg - in killer whale territory
Lets not go all vigilante on his a**. He only stands accused, so far. I wonder how the police were able to figure out it happened over a 3 month duration.
We have a rule and all readers know the rule: no personal attacks. It doesn't matter who the person is.
Also, as Americans we should remember an accusation is not the same as conviction.
It's one thing to condemn the crime. It's a different matter to assume an accused's guilt and act accordingly.
You are right sorry got carried away with the moment it hits home, I should say I pray this is not true. Thank you..
I have been ambivalent on the death penalty for years. If, however, these allegations prove true, I can't think of a better argument for it's usefulness.
Sexual abuse of a TWO YEAR OLD?
H.O. do you know if he is being held, out on bail, or released under the supervision of Genesee Justice? As absurd as it is, people (may I say scum bags, Howard?) accused of similar crimes have been released without bail in this county before.
I heard on WBTA radio he got released from jail under the supervision of Genesee Justice! Dumb move on there part in my opinion!
I explain this over and over -- bail, or not -- is not and cannot be punishment. The criteria is flight risk, and that's pretty much it. It's unconstitutional for it to be anything else.
And, also, it can't be about "protecting the community," if that's what you're getting at. Until a person is convicted, he or she is presumed innocent. You can't keep an innocent person in jail just because you want to.
And to be clear, I'm not taking a position on this or any other case. This is about the Constitution and due process (the Fourth Amendment), which is vital to all of our freedoms.
If convicted, put his "business" in a vise...weld the vise shut....give him an old rusty dull knife...then set the room on fire. For society, a win / win solution.
Howard: So you are saying that ANY person accused of ANY crime should be released as long as he / she doesn't have a bad record and has yies to the community?
I understand the concept of bail. I also understand common sense.
Would you be so objective if this guy lived next door and you had a 2 year old?
I have a 3 year old. Disgusting. Makes me sick to my stomach at the thought of it.
It's not Howard saying it, it's the law. All Howard did was explain why he was released, he never said he agreed.
Bob, what if it were you who were accused, wouldn't you want all the rights you're entitled to under the US constitution?
And before you say you would never be accused of such a thing, people do get falsely accused of all sorts of things (I'm not saying it's common, but it does happen).
So let's say you were falsely accused: Would you consider it right to hold you without bail until you could prove your innocence?
The rights of the US Constitution protect us all, the innocent and the guilty alike, but they're most valuable -- and it's why men have fought and died to defend it -- when it protects the innocent.
The only way the innocent are guaranteed protection is if the rules are equally applied to all.
I'm not saying anything about this particular defendant. As publisher/owner of a local news business, I MUST remain neutral on the question of guilt or innocence of a particular defendant. Were I to take a position that indicated I believed a specific defendant was guilty of a crime, and that defendant were later acquitted, I could be sued for libel. That's not a risk I want to take with any defendant, no matter how reprehensible the accusation.
While we're on the subject of libel in criminal cases, something all people leaving comments should consider: By federal law, I share in no liability for any comment you leave. If you post something assuming the guilt of defendant and that defendant is later acquitted, that defendant could NOT sue me, but he COULD sue you.
He could sue you and take your home, your car, and get a judgement against you that would mean garnished wages far into the future.
If I were you, I would be very careful about how you word things. The comments that are general in nature about how you find a particular type of crime reprehensible -- without indicating a conviction of a particular individual -- are protected opinion (IMHO, though I'm no lawyer, I just play one on the Internet).
When I remove comments, it's not to protect you from libel. I have no obligation to protect you. Nor is it to protect me from a libel suit (again, federal law gives me immunity in that matter). It's to maintain a sense of civil community with an eye toward the bigger picture of running an online community forum where anybody can feel safe to participate, and no subject of the news should need to fear getting unfairly maligned (though I can think of some times I've fallen down on the job in this regard). In other words, removing comments on a story such as this one isn't just about this one story. It's about looking at the entire vista of the news we cover.
But fair warning, you're responsible for your own words.
Also, to get back to Bob, I greatly cherish the Bill of Rights. Do you?
Howard, please see my comments on Friday's poll.
And as far as users of this forum expressing opinion, our first amendment rights protect us. Unless I completely fabricate a story with no preponderance of evidence that the behavior actually occurred, I am protected. The fact that an arrest has been made, covers that.
(My turn to play internet lawyer). :)
Yes, I cherish the Bill of Rights. Especially the 1st and 2nd amendments.
The fact that an arrest has been made does not cover any comment that assumes guilt. You have no First Amendment right to libel anybody. If you did, there would never be any libel suits. Your only protection is actual conviction.
Years ago, I was involved with a group that provided a safe place for parents to have supervised visits with their children. We also provided a stress free location for the custodial parent to bring their children for weekend visits with the other parent. It was much better than transferring kids in the parking lot at the police station, etc.
One young father was accused, by his ex-wife, of abusing his toddler. The accusation, as it turned out, was fueled by his attempt to gain custody and to remove the child from a less than wholesome environment with her mother and mom's boyfriend.
The wheels of justice turn slow. In the meantime, the accusation was published and his name and reputation tarnished. In the end, he did win custody and his name was cleared, but not before two years of hell.
Like Howard, I'm not offering any opinion about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Little.
The same people, who cite the Bill of Rights,when it comes to firearms, seem too anxious to destroy the rights of others.
So Bob, if you yell fire in a crowded theater and people stampede out the door and some get trampled, injured or killed as a result, would you consider yourself protected under the first amendment?
Mark, I always read your thoughtful comments with respect and usually agree with you.
I can't, however, figure how this post has anything to do with the discussion. Of course your example has been answered in the courts.
Actually Bob the burden of proof is indeed upon you, if you make up a story that is in any way accusatory of anyone it is not generally considered valid without you providing the "proof" of your claims and is dismissed. Its been that way for about 2000 years in civilized society.
Roman law: The sixth century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat — "Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies". It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul. When this rule is applied to criminal process (whether or not that was done in Roman law itself), it places the burden of proof upon the accuser, which has the corollary that the accused is presumed to be innocent.
 Common law: In sources from common law jurisdictions, the expression appears in an extended version, in its original form and then in a shortened form (and in each case the translation provided varies). As extended, it is: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit — "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." As found in its original form, it is (as above): Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat — "The proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies."  Then, shortened from the original, it is: Ei incumbit probatio qui — "the onus of proving a fact rests upon the man".
"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof. This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840). Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime.
The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:
1.With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.
2.With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
3.The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.
Thank You Bob, you also have made some cogent arguements, my response was based on your highlighting the first and second amendments
The fact is, all 10 amendments under the Bill of Rights have and shpould have equal footing.
the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th amendments all deal with the righst of the acused and trial rights, they are every bit as important as the first and second.