You deserve to be raped

[Unbeatable]

I should have worded that differently. A defence lawyer knowing beyond doubt his client is guilty and will in most cases grill the victim unmercifully, making her out to be a slut that was asking for it, or the sex was consensul and she cried rape afterwards. These the guys I meant could in some cases be referred to as scum.

I thought "people who have a constitutional right to a fair trial" covered that. You don't need to personally like a person or approve of their actions in order to believe that you are duty-bound to give them the best legal defense you can, which may include using strategies like victim-blaming and slut-shaming if they're deemed effective.

Of course, I was only half-kidding about the pile of money. "paying clients" is another alternative to "rapist scum"

 

[Nexus]

I thought "people who have a constitutional right to a fair trial" covered that. You don't need to personally like a person or approve of their actions in order to believe that you are duty-bound to give them the best legal defense you can, which may include using strategies like victim-blaming and slut-shaming if they're deemed effective.

One could argue its a flaw in our constitutional system. The goal of a justice system should be to punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Maybe our adversarial system is the best to approximate that outcome. But defense lawyers who knowingly and successfully exonerate the guilty with strategies that harm victims are still scum. As are prosecutors that intentionally convict innocent people.

Perhaps a criminal lawyer could argue without a adversarial trial system greater social harm would occur. For instance without it we would either have tribal like revenge feuds among the families of victims or an Inquisition type system which comes with its own problems.

 

[Unbeatable]

One could argue whatever one wants to argue. I'm of the "better ten guilty go free than one innocent go to prison" school of thought myself, but I don't care to argue it. All I'm doing is offering some plausible rationales which would allow a lawyer who knowingly defends the guilty to do so with a relatively clean conscience, not rationales which would allow them to convince you that they're in the right.

 

[Nexus]

One could argue whatever one wants to argue. I'm of the "better ten guilty go free than one innocent go to prison" school of thought myself, but I don't care to argue it. All I'm doing is offering some plausible rationales which would allow a lawyer who knowingly defends the guilty to do so with a relatively clean conscience, not rationales which would allow them to convince you that they're in the right.

You haven't given a plausible rational though. The guilty can still have a fair trial without lawyers distorting the facts and obfuscating the truth. The most plausible reason a lawyer knowingly defends the guilty without regret is because he lacks a conscience. The same applies to a prosecutor that indicts someone they know is innocent.

 

[Unbeatable]

One could argue whatever one wants to argue. I'm of the "better ten guilty go free than one innocent go to prison" school of thought myself, but I don't care to argue it. All I'm doing is offering some plausible rationales which would allow a lawyer who knowingly defends the guilty to do so with a relatively clean conscience, not rationales which would allow them to convince you that they're in the right.

You haven't given a plausible rational though. The guilty can still have a fair trial without lawyers distorting the facts and obfuscating the truth.

"distorting the facts and obfuscating the truth" is your way of thinking about their actions. Maybe it's not theirs; maybe they think of it as "establishing reasonable doubt", or something like that.

The most plausible reason a lawyer knowingly defends the guilty without regret is because he lacks a conscience. The same applies to a prosecutor that indicts someone they know is innocent.

Then I guess we find different ideas plausible. I don't find "he lacks a conscience" to be the most plausible conclusion in any case where I only know a person's behavior in one context. It's an overly strong claim, one with too many implications for other contexts. Also, the phenomenon of people not having consciences is much much rarer than the phenomenon of people compartmentalizing and rationalizing their actions. So without knowing more about a given lawyer, I favor relatively situational explanations like "it's their job, so they come up with whatever rationalization they need to in order to minimize internal conflict".

 

[laughing dog]

"distorting the facts and obfuscating the truth" is your way of thinking about their actions. Maybe it's not theirs; maybe they think of it as "establishing reasonable doubt", or something like that.

SInce no one deserves or asks to be raped, defense lawyers who imply otherwise are scummy, regardless of their modes of thinking.

 

[Unbeatable]

You realize this whole exchange is about me responding to the question of how those lawyers sleep at night? Calling them scum just says that you don't approve of them. It says more about you than it does about them.

 

[bigfield]

"distorting the facts and obfuscating the truth" is your way of thinking about their actions. Maybe it's not theirs; maybe they think of it as "establishing reasonable doubt", or something like that.

SInce no one deserves or asks to be raped, defense lawyers who imply otherwise are scummy, regardless of their modes of thinking.

Arguing that the victim deserved to be raped is not about establishing reasonable doubt that the defendant actually committed the rape. Instead, it is arguing that even though the defendant is guilty of the crime, his sentence should be lightened or suspended.

That anyone might find such an argument convincing, and subsequently lessen the perpetrator's punishment, is where the system fails.

 

[Unbeatable]

Arguing that the victim deserved to be raped is not about establishing reasonable doubt that the defendant actually committed the rape. Instead, it is arguing that even though the defendant is guilty of the crime, his sentence should be lightened or suspended.

True enough, if they're entering a guilty plea.

 

[angelo]

I should have worded that differently. A defence lawyer knowing beyond doubt his client is guilty and will in most cases grill the victim unmercifully, making her out to be a slut that was asking for it, or the sex was consensul and she cried rape afterwards. These the guys I meant could in some cases be referred to as scum.

I thought "people who have a constitutional right to a fair trial" covered that. You don't need to personally like a person or approve of their actions in order to believe that you are duty-bound to give them the best legal defense you can, which may include using strategies like victim-blaming and slut-shaming if they're deemed effective.

Of course, I was only half-kidding about the pile of money. "paying clients" is another alternative to "rapist scum"

That's exactly what I mean by how can they sleep at night knowing full well their client is guilty and doing that to the victim/ Is it really all that much better than what is done to a victim in a sharia ruled theocracy? Apart from the lashings and physical abuse and perhaps a stoning the same emotional turmoil would ensure.

 

[Toni]

I thought "people who have a constitutional right to a fair trial" covered that. You don't need to personally like a person or approve of their actions in order to believe that you are duty-bound to give them the best legal defense you can, which may include using strategies like victim-blaming and slut-shaming if they're deemed effective.

One could argue its a flaw in our constitutional system. The goal of a justice system should be to punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Maybe our adversarial system is the best to approximate that outcome. But defense lawyers who knowingly and successfully exonerate the guilty with strategies that harm victims are still scum. As are prosecutors that intentionally convict innocent people.

Perhaps a criminal lawyer could argue without a adversarial trial system greater social harm would occur. For instance without it we would either have tribal like revenge feuds among the families of victims or an Inquisition type system which comes with its own problems.

I would argue that the goal of our justice system should be justice. This may or may not include 'punishment.' Even the worst criminal deserves a fair trial. We are all harmed if the state makes its case while violating the constitutional rights of the accused. Neither should the victim's rights be violated in order to convict the accused.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I thought "people who have a constitutional right to a fair trial" covered that. You don't need to personally like a person or approve of their actions in order to believe that you are duty-bound to give them the best legal defense you can, which may include using strategies like victim-blaming and slut-shaming if they're deemed effective.

One could argue its a flaw in our constitutional system. The goal of a justice system should be to punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Maybe our adversarial system is the best to approximate that outcome. But defense lawyers who knowingly and successfully exonerate the guilty with strategies that harm victims are still scum. As are prosecutors that intentionally convict innocent people.

Perhaps a criminal lawyer could argue without a adversarial trial system greater social harm would occur. For instance without it we would either have tribal like revenge feuds among the families of victims or an Inquisition type system which comes with its own problems.

Social harm has already occurred in view of so many rape victims not pressing charges while they apprehend the process of being grilled on the stand by a defense strategy relying on "victim-blaming" and "slut-shaming". Let alone the fact that rape victims are usually not looking forward to relive their trauma in its specific details in any adversarial environment. The specific detail delivery being usually associated with professional counseling which of course is far from being adversarial.

 

[Derec]

Social harm has already occurred in view of so many rape victims not pressing charges while they apprehend the process of being grilled on the stand by a defense strategy relying on "victim-blaming" and "slut-shaming". Let alone the fact that rape victims are usually not looking forward to relive their trauma in its specific details in any adversarial environment. The specific detail delivery being usually associated with professional counseling which of course is far from being adversarial.

So what is your solution? Do what the universities have done and deny those accused due process rights so the accuser doesn't have to be confronted? Besides, why have a trial when every feminist knows that "women don't lie about rape"?

 

[laughing dog]

"distorting the facts and obfuscating the truth" is your way of thinking about their actions. Maybe it's not theirs; maybe they think of it as "establishing reasonable doubt", or something like that.

SInce no one deserves or asks to be raped, defense lawyers who imply otherwise are scummy, regardless of their modes of thinking.

Arguing that the victim deserved to be raped is not about establishing reasonable doubt that the defendant actually committed the rape. Instead, it is arguing that even though the defendant is guilty of the crime, his sentence should be lightened or suspended.

And somehow that mitigates that defense because.....?

 

[Unbeatable]

I should have worded that differently. A defence lawyer knowing beyond doubt his client is guilty and will in most cases grill the victim unmercifully, making her out to be a slut that was asking for it, or the sex was consensul and she cried rape afterwards. These the guys I meant could in some cases be referred to as scum.

I thought "people who have a constitutional right to a fair trial" covered that. You don't need to personally like a person or approve of their actions in order to believe that you are duty-bound to give them the best legal defense you can, which may include using strategies like victim-blaming and slut-shaming if they're deemed effective.

Of course, I was only half-kidding about the pile of money. "paying clients" is another alternative to "rapist scum"

That's exactly what I mean by how can they sleep at night knowing full well their client is guilty and doing that to the victim/

And it seems to me that people generally sleep at night by reframing their actions in some manner which allows them to convince themselves either that their actions served some Greater Good, or that their actions weren't that bad, or that they didn't really have a (acceptable) choice, or that the sum of their good actions karmically balances out their bad actions, etc.. And I don't think lawyers who knowingly defend rapists and use slut-shaming/victim-blaming tactics in their defense are a particularly special case.

I suspect that dishonesty and hurting innocent people are occupational hazards of practicing law, or of being a politician at a sufficiently high level of office, or various other occupations, and that when you sign on to be part of these big systems which throw people under the bus on a regular basis, you sign on to the possibility of sooner or later being the one doing the throwing. It seems to me there must be an assortment of ways for people to make peace with this, or else there would be many fewer people in these lines of work.

Is it really all that much better than what is done to a victim in a sharia ruled theocracy?
Apart from the lashings and physical abuse and perhaps a stoning the same emotional turmoil would ensure.

It seems like this question amounts to "Is A really all that much better than B, apart from all the things that make B worse than A?" Though in practice, I guess there are other differences which make B worse. Like sharia-ruled theocracy having a stronger "rape culture" than we do, and weaker feminism, and therefore even less emotional support for victims. I mean, I don't know how many things like "battered woman's shelters" or "marital rape" laws exist under sharia.

 

[angelo]

The trauma of a trial where a woman's past is dragged up before a court is not something many women look forward to. Or the fact that she may have agreed to a date with the accused, perhaps even consented to a kiss and cuddle.
But she said no to sex is rape in my book. But for the fact of the courtroom trauma, many women/girls don't even report it, or tell their family or friends about it because they feel humiliated and too often blame themselves.

The ones who do go to court are only the tip of the iceberg of women who are sexually abused.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Social harm has already occurred in view of so many rape victims not pressing charges while they apprehend the process of being grilled on the stand by a defense strategy relying on "victim-blaming" and "slut-shaming". Let alone the fact that rape victims are usually not looking forward to relive their trauma in its specific details in any adversarial environment. The specific detail delivery being usually associated with professional counseling which of course is far from being adversarial.

So what is your solution? Do what the universities have done and deny those accused due process rights so the accuser doesn't have to be confronted?

The fact you use "confronted" indicates to me that you have a very poor understanding of the emotional and mental struggles a rape victim will experience. Trained law enforcement personnel involved in an investigation regarding a rape are not going to "confront" any individual who pressed charges. They will ask questions related to the circumstances of the rape without implying that it did not happen. As to inquiry processes triggered by Universities themselves, unless the local law enforcement investigation concludes there is tangible evidence supporting the rape accusation, IMO they should not take any disciplinary measures against the accused party. Further in the course of such inquiry process, it would be totally unacceptable for the University Staff involved in that process to even think about "confronting" the claiming party. If the word came out that a University conducts such inquiry by badgering the claiming party, I guarantee you that it would be a deterrent for rape victims to come out. You do not want to add more social harm than the one I commented upon which covered the SPECIFICS of defense attorneys' tactics of relying on "slut shaming" and " victim blaming" while the plaintiff is on a stand in the course of a trial.

Any time any University Staff receives a complaint that a student has been sexually assaulted or raped, they should automatically redirect the said student to filing a complaint with local law enforcement. Such Staff is not to confuse an inquiry process for equating the Justice system. They are not to be Judge or Jury. However if as I stated earlier ,the official investigation conducted by local law enforcement has gathered evidence which support the plaintiff's claim and which of course will trigger a prosecution based on specific charges pronounced by a DA ( SA in Florida), the accused party should be suspended temp until completion of the trial and rendered verdict. Usually, a Prosecutor will charge the rape/sexual assault accused party based on sufficient evidence (gathered during the law enforcement conducted investigation) that the claim is legitimate and the case can be won by the Prosecutor.

As to current policies of automatically suspending or expelling the accused party based solely on "he says, she says", I do not support them.

Besides, why have a trial when every feminist knows that "women don't lie about rape"?

I do not recall any FRDB members or/and now TFT members as self declared feminists ever claiming that false accusations of rape cannot happen because "women do not lie about rape". What I do recall though is those same members reacting to your dragging your hobby horse of false accusations in every single thread with a topic related to sexual assault/ rape. Making it appear that you focus solely on false accusations while disregarding the profound trauma experienced by rape victims.

Personally, I am all for judiciary penalties imposed on an individual who made a false accusation. I do because we need to find a way to deter them so that it protects innocent parties while at the same time it does not make rape victims suspicious every single time they have the courage and fortitude to come forward. False accusers have harmed rape victims and stained the credibility of rape victims let alone the profound harm they cause to the innocent person they falsely accuse.

Next time you feel the need to bark at a tree, make sure it is not the wrong tree you are barking at.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The trauma of a trial where a woman's past is dragged up before a court is not something many women look forward to. Or the fact that she may have agreed to a date with the accused, perhaps even consented to a kiss and cuddle.
But she said no to sex is rape in my book. But for the fact of the courtroom trauma, many women/girls don't even report it, or tell their family or friends about it because they feel humiliated and too often blame themselves.

The ones who do go to court are only the tip of the iceberg of women who are sexually abused.

Add to that category MALE rape victims who will face the added stigma of being viewed as "sissies" by testosterone loaded males. IMO a male rape victim is bound to experience far more shame inducing factors than a female rape victim while remaining in secrecy far longer. There is an online rape/sexual assault support website founded by women who provides support and counseling to male victims while they can remain anonymous. I am saddened as I browse through it and read male victims's testimonials of their having been raped several decades ago and who never opened up to anyone about it.

 

[bilby]

 

[Derec]

The fact you use "confronted" indicates to me that you have a very poor understanding of the emotional and mental struggles a rape victim will experience.

I use the term "confront" because that's the proper legal term. It has nothing to do with "emotional and mental struggles".

Trained law enforcement personnel involved in an investigation regarding a rape are not going to "confront" any individual who pressed charges.

No, they question her to determine whether her accusation is, in their opinion, credible. The "confrontation" is the right given to the accused (and their counsel).

They will ask questions related to the circumstances of the rape without implying that it did not happen.

But they should also take heed to not err in the other direction and be too accepting of her allegations.

As to inquiry processes triggered by Universities themselves, unless the local law enforcement investigation concludes there is tangible evidence supporting the rape accusation, IMO they should not take any disciplinary measures against the accused party.

I agree. However, the universities have been doing just that and it has gotten much worse since Obama administration mandated that universities must use the lowest standard possible and must restrict accused student's due process rights significantly.

Further in the course of such inquiry process, it would be totally unacceptable for the University Staff involved in that process to even think about "confronting" the claiming party.

The university is preventing the accused student to confront his accuser or the witnesses against him or even to have a lawyer present.

If the word came out that a University conducts such inquiry by badgering the claiming party, I guarantee you that it would be a deterrent for rape victims to come out.

Nobody said anything about "badgering" but the reality is quite the opposite - universities are bending backwards to believe the accuser unquestioningly and are punishing the accused even when there is exculpatory evidence like text messages, Facebook messages or the accuser being criminally charged with filing a false rape report.

You do not want to add more social harm than the one I commented upon which covered the SPECIFICS of defense attorneys' tactics of relying on "slut shaming" and " victim blaming" while the plaintiff is on a stand in the course of a trial.

The accused has the right to defend himself. When the main "evidence" against him (as it usually is) is the claim by the accuser itself, her credibility is absolutely fair game, be it a criminal trial or a university tribunal. Unfortunately university tribunals have degenerated into kangaroo courts where the accused is not allowed to adequately defend himself.

Any time any University Staff receives a complaint that a student has been sexually assaulted or raped, they should automatically redirect the said student to filing a complaint with local law enforcement. Such Staff is not to confuse an inquiry process for equating the Justice system. They are not to be Judge or Jury. However if as I stated earlier ,the official investigation conducted by local law enforcement has gathered evidence which support the plaintiff's claim and which of course will trigger a prosecution based on specific charges pronounced by a DA ( SA in Florida), the accused party should be suspended temp until completion of the trial and rendered verdict. Usually, a Prosecutor will charge the rape/sexual assault accused party based on sufficient evidence (gathered during the law enforcement conducted investigation) that the claim is legitimate and the case can be won by the Prosecutor.

And if there are no criminal charges filed? Do you think that should be the end of the university action as well?

As to current policies of automatically suspending or expelling the accused party based solely on "he says, she says", I do not support them.

Thank you. But unfortunately that is the mandatory policy right now and many on here support it.

I do not recall any FRDB members or/and now TFT members as self declared feminists ever claiming that false accusations of rape cannot happen because "women do not lie about rape".

Not in so many words but they do think false positives (which are result of lowering burden of proof and eliminating due process protections) are not a bog deal.

What I do recall though is those same members reacting to your dragging your hobby horse of false accusations in every single thread with a topic related to sexual assault/ rape. Making it appear that you focus solely on false accusations while disregarding the profound trauma experienced by rape victims.

Reality of false rape allegations is important part of the discussion of the topic because the knee-jerk reaction to rape is to label any suspicion of any claim no matter how dubious as "victim blaming" and complain about low conviction rate (which can be remedied most easily by lowering burden of proof of course).

Personally, I am all for judiciary penalties imposed on an individual who made a false accusation. I do because we need to find a way to deter them so that it protects innocent parties while at the same time it does not make rape victims suspicious every single time they have the courage and fortitude to come forward. False accusers have harmed rape victims and stained the credibility of rape victims let alone the profound harm they cause to the innocent person they falsely accuse.

Next time you feel the need to bark at a tree, make sure it is not the wrong tree you are barking at.

I am just saying that we need to be careful before cutting trees in the first place because the trauma of being falsely accused is real as well. As is the damage of being arrested, tried and possibly convicted for something you didn't do. To a lesser extent, but still very real, is the damage of being suspended/expelled for something you didn't do.