NationStates Jolt Archive

A lawyer in England has argued that since the victim of a gang rape was fat at the time of the attack she should have been "glad of the attention". http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=49517&in_page_id=34

I'm not sure what to say about this ****. Maybe someone should gang rape her so she understands it's not positive attention. Then again, maybe she'd be glad if it happened.

I didn't think someone could be so retarded and still manage to get through law school.

I didn't think someone could be so retarded and still manage to get through law school.
But you have to remember: it's the UK. Stupidity is our middle name.

I didn't think someone could be so retarded and still manage to get through law school.

Haven't you ever seen this (http://www.thebigshow.com/picsnsuch/archive/grabbag/dumblawyers.html)? It's all over the internet.

That's just charming, really. Next thing you know, the lawyer will be saying it must have been consensual because the girl was wearing jeans and it's hard to get jeans off without the willing help of the person wearing them. Lovely.

A lawyer in England has argued that since the victim of a gang rape was fat at the time of the attack she should have been "glad of the attention". http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=49517&in_page_id=34

I'm not sure what to say about this ****. Maybe someone should gang rape her so she understands it's not positive attention. Then again, maybe she'd be glad if it happened.

That's almost as good as the lawyer in the US defending three guys who raped a 15 year old girl at a party who was passed out by arguing she had been moving during the rape, and therefore wasn't really passed out and had actually been, like, totally asking for it.

Lord.

You mean you can get through law school without being that absurd?

"How can I make blaming the victim more repellent? Oh! I know..."

:headbang:

I didn't think someone could be so retarded and still manage to get through law school.

It's a requirement that lawyers be able to think of, and support, retarded arguments.

The law has nothing to do with morality, common sense, etc.

She's probably a great lawyer. She is free from conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

But you have to remember: it's the UK. Stupidity is our middle name.

United Stupidity Kingdom?

And that is why everyone hates lawyers.

They will do anything to win and get money.

It's a requirement that lawyers be able to think of, and support, retarded arguments.

The law has nothing to do with morality, common sense, etc.

She's probably a great lawyer. She is free from conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

For a lawyer to try so ridiculous an arguement says to me that her clients are probably all kinds of guilty.

to be fair this is the lawyer that agreed to defend a gang rapist she can't be the fastest dog on the track now

course the lawyer is probably old...anyone fancy trying to get the courts to agree that she can't claim rape in future?

And that is why everyone hates lawyers.

They will do anything to win and get money.

They are required to do that. It's in the job description.

I'm sure that if you had a lawyer defending you, you would want them to do anything and everything under the law to defend you, including positing ridiculous and inane arguments.

It's those things that make me feel like the whole world is gone mad/is still mad.

:headbang:

Someone calm me down please, or give me something against high blood pressure...

Rape is rape. Gender is of no matter when one is violated sexually.

This lawyer ought to be brought before the court on a count of condoning and inciting sexually assaults against women.

Fat or nor people all have the same right to the same dignity.

Someone calm me down please, or give me something against high blood pressure...

*forges will*

you' know Fred Phelps is still alive and Paris has a good chance of getting out of jail

And that is why everyone hates lawyers.

They will do anything to win and get money.

To be fair, we all have to make money. Lawyers just have greater potential to screw up people's lives while doing it.

to be fair this is the lawyer that agreed to defend a gang rapist she can't be the fastest dog on the track now

Just because somebody is accused of something doesn't mean they did it, you paedophile.

Rape is rape. Gender is of no matter when one is violated sexually.

This lawyer ought to be brought before the court on a count of condoning and inciting sexually assaults against women.

Fat or nor people all have the same right to the same dignity.
QFT (although shouldn't it simply be 'condoning and inciting sexual assaults'?)

*rummages around in her desk and pulls out a dangerous looking dagger with a long handle* Anyone mind if I shove this- handle and all- up the barrister's ass against her will? She's so ugly, she might be glad of the attention I give her.

Look, I'm not the best looking woman in the world to most people, but I have a man that loves me and his opinion matters. It doesn't matter what you look like, its what is inside that really matters...

The Word Of The Kara

And that is why everyone hates lawyers.

They will do anything to win

Um, you realize that lawers are ethically and professionally bound to "do anything to win"? It's part of the whole zealos advocacy thing. A lawyer doesn't get to decide what client he will work harder for. A lawyer doesn't get to decide if he will try to win or not.

A lawyer does one thing, and one thing only, anything he can to win. He has to. It's part of the job.

Just because somebody is accused of something doesn't mean they did it, you paedophile.
One presumes that they did, if the lawyer has to resort to such an idiotic defence as 'the victim would have been glad of the attention'. There must be a hell of a lot of evidence against them, or maybe they got a really, really bad lawyer.

*forges will*

you' know Fred Phelps is still alive and Paris has a good chance of getting out of jail

laaalaaa I'm not hearing this!

*builds a one-person rocket to the moon and stuffs it with a lifetime's supply of chocolate cookies*

QFT (although shouldn't it simply be 'condoning and inciting sexual assaults'?)

Yeah it could but I'm sweaty and not caffeinated so I'm thinking with my ass.

How...repugnant.

I thought this kind of stuff only happened on bad episodes of Law and Order: SVU.

Um, you realize that lawers are ethically and professionally bound to "do anything to win"? It's part of the whole zealos advocacy thing. A lawyer doesn't get to decide what client he will work harder for. A lawyer doesn't get to decide if he will try to win or not.

A lawyer does one thing, and one thing only, anything he can to win. He has to. It's part of the job.

Yes. People forget this. It's like the Hippocratic Oath is for doctors; each lawyer must do everything in his or her power to defend the accused. This particular lawyer just seems to be doing a shitty job at it.

Yes. People forget this. It's like the Hippocratic Oath is for doctors; each lawyer must do everything in his or her power to defend the accused. This particular lawyer just seems to be doing a shitty job at it.

true, but...ehh, you take your client as you find him.

Yes. People forget this. It's like the Hippocratic Oath is for doctors; each lawyer must do everything in his or her power to defend the accused. This particular lawyer just seems to be doing a shitty job at it.

Or he is doing a fine job and the argument is just fucking stupid because there is so much evidence against them.

One presumes that they did, if the lawyer has to resort to such an idiotic defence as 'the victim would have been glad of the attention'. There must be a hell of a lot of evidence against them, or maybe they got a really, really bad lawyer.

Oh, I agree it's a stupid defence. But they deserve to have a defence, don't they? And, sadly, a lawyer is necessary for that.

'Course, if that's the best she can come up with they'll probably wind up in prison quick-smart, and everybody (else) will live (more-or-less) happily ever after.

Or he is doing a fine job and the argument is just fucking stupid because there is so much evidence against them.

that is sort of what i meant by you take your client as you find him. You go with what you got.

And, in fact, let's look at her argument, it basically said something like this, if we elaborate on it:

She was very unattractive as a teenager, at a time when teenagers are the most superficial. We know that teenagers who don't fit in may feel ostracized and alone, and when you're 16, which is such a tough age for anyone, and it seems like everyone you know is sexually experimenting you can feel left out and alone when it seems that nobody wants to do the same with you. So along came these boys who showed her attention, showed her affection, and for the first time she felt like someone wanted to be with her, despite her weight and appearance. Maybe these acts weren't the result of rape, but rather she did it willingly because she was being treated with affection by a male for the first time, when all of her other peers shunned her. Maybe she did this willingly, because she was grateful for the fact that someone finally seemed to want to be with her.


Now, phrase it THAT way, and it becomes a not all together terrible argument. Which I think what the lawyer in this situation was trying to say, or did say, and we only got a tiny snippet of it.

Um, you realize that lawers are ethically and professionally bound to "do anything to win"? It's part of the whole zealos advocacy thing. A lawyer doesn't get to decide what client he will work harder for. A lawyer doesn't get to decide if he will try to win or not.

A lawyer does one thing, and one thing only, anything he can to win. He has to. It's part of the job.

That is not an excuse. If the lawyer has the choice of choosing his clients, he has done a moral choice and must be deemed responsible for it.

If its a choice, deal with the consequences. If it isnt a choice, you can proclain you had to do it.

That is not an excuse. If the lawyer has the choice of choosing his clients, he has done a moral choice and must be deemed responsible for it.

If its a choice, deal with the consequences. If it isnt a choice, you can proclain you had to do it.

But everyone is guaranteed defense in modern democracies, even the most heinous murders and rapists. How is it immoral to defend a rapist in court if he's guaranteed defense anyway? If he committed the crime, the prosecution should be able to prove it and bring him to justice. (Of course, this is ignoring all the other problems with rape cases, like the hesitance of victims to report the crime, etc.)

Solution: Get the boys some serious psycological help, if it don't work there is castration. Shoot that lawyer, they have no reason to exist on this planet.

That is not an excuse. If the lawyer has the choice of choosing his clients, he has done a moral choice and must be deemed responsible for it.

What you are suggesting is the very fundamental opposite of how the legal system works. You are saying that a lawyer should make a judgment that is in fundamental opposition to the very legal maxims that the lawyer has sworn to protect, namely:

1) all people deserve a defense

and

2) a person is innocent until their guilt is proven

Moreover, I don't know how the british system works, but especially in the US when you have public defenders, there is NO choice in client. Also if that lawyer is part of a firm and the defendant contracted with the firm and the lawyer is assigned, the lawyer also has a contractual obligation.

Or if that client had previously retained that lawyer.

To suggest that a lawyer is free to discriminate because he doesn't like the potential client cuts at the heart of how our legal system works.

What moral consequence are you saying? Defending a client who has not been proven guilty? You have made the judgement that these boys are guilty, based on a single newspaper article. Please, for all our sakes, never be a lawyer.

They are required to do that. It's in the job description.

I'm sure that if you had a lawyer defending you, you would want them to do anything and everything under the law to defend you, including positing ridiculous and inane arguments.

See now, here's where I start thinking I'm insane. If I had actually raped someone, I'd be completely unable to hide my own guilt. It'd be all over my face. As such, I'd forbid my lawyer from making such hurtful and patently desperate claims. I wouldn't want my crime compounded by trying to weasel out of it. It might get me out of prison, but not out of debt to Karma.

If I had not committed the crime, I still wouldn't want an argument like that used in my defense. I've got a semi-public face as a professor, and that's not behavior you live down anytime soon. It would affect my job. The appearance of that kind of desperation would probably make more people think I'm guilty despite any acquittal or findings of innocence.

I must be crazy to choose honesty and potential jail time over debasing a victim to get out of a charge, guilty or not.

HOWEVER -- if I knew that the victim was fabricating the allegations...nah. I still wouldn't do it. It sinks to that level.

See now, here's where I start thinking I'm insane. If I had actually raped someone, I'd be completely unable to hide my own guilt. It'd be all over my face. As such, I'd forbid my lawyer from making such hurtful and patently desperate claims. I wouldn't want my crime compounded by trying to weasel out of it. It might get me out of prison, but not out of debt to Karma.

If I had not committed the crime, I still wouldn't want an argument like that used in my defense. I've got a semi-public face as a professor, and that's not behavior you live down anytime soon. It would affect my job. The appearance of that kind of desperation would probably make more people think I'm guilty despite any acquittal or findings of innocence.

I must be crazy to choose honesty and potential jail time over debasing a victim to get out of a charge, guilty or not.

HOWEVER -- if I knew that the victim was fabricating the allegations...nah. I still wouldn't do it. It sinks to that level.

You seem to be assuming that rapists have much of a conscience, sometihng I very much doubt.

Shoot that lawyer, they have no reason to exist on this planet.

I'd like to hear you say that the day YOU need a lawyer. Which is all it is really, everyone can go "oh what a horrible lawyer saying things like that" up until they day THEY need a defense, at which point they'll be demanding that the lawyer do EVERYTHING possible.

It's hypocricy of the worst order.

2) a person is innocent until their guilt is proven



I understand a lawyer must do everything in its potential. But really, rape is rape (forcing someone into sex unwillingly). Where in the law does it say 'someone over so-and-so pounds who is forced into sex, is not raped'?

See now, here's where I start thinking I'm insane. If I had actually raped someone, I'd be completely unable to hide my own guilt. It'd be all over my face. As such, I'd forbid my lawyer from making such hurtful and patently desperate claims. I wouldn't want my crime compounded by trying to weasel out of it. It might get me out of prison, but not out of debt to Karma.

If I had not committed the crime, I still wouldn't want an argument like that used in my defense. I've got a semi-public face as a professor, and that's not behavior you live down anytime soon. It would affect my job. The appearance of that kind of desperation would probably make more people think I'm guilty despite any acquittal or findings of innocence.

I must be crazy to choose honesty and potential jail time over debasing a victim to get out of a charge, guilty or not.

HOWEVER -- if I knew that the victim was fabricating the allegations...nah. I still wouldn't do it. It sinks to that level.

I'm not saying it's right.

The criminals I've never understood are the ones who claim to do their crime for political reasons.

Tim McVeigh springs to mind. If he was doing it for political reasons, and got caught, he should have been proud to say he did it (no matter how heinous the rest of us thought it was). Instead, he became a complete wuss and dragged us through a few years of waiting before we executed him.

You seem to be assuming that rapists have much of a conscience, sometihng I very much doubt.

you seem to assume that they are rapists, based on a single news article.

I understand a lawyer must do everything in its potential. But really, rape is rape (forcing someone into sex unwillingly). Where in the law does it say 'someone over so-and-so pounds who is forced into sex, is not raped'?

read what I said above. Her argument is NOT that she was overweight therefore forcing her into sex.

Rather her argument is that she was overweight, and therefore, since she was probably unpopular as a kid, may have consented to the sexual acts, because she was getting attention when she normally did not.

Very fundamental difference.

you seem to assume that they are rapists, based on a single news article.

I was speaking about rapists in general, not the people in the article.

I was speaking about racists in general

Oh, so now they're RACIST too?

...yes I know it was a typo, but a funny one.

Oh, so now they're RACIST too?

...yes I know it was a typo, but a funny one.

*slaps forehead*
D'oh!
Curse my stupid fingers.

read what I said above. Her argument is NOT that she was overweight therefore forcing her into sex.

Rather her argument is that she was overweight, and therefore, since she was probably unpopular as a kid, may have consented to the sexual acts, because she was getting attention when she normally did not.

Very fundamental difference.

I appreciate the dexterity of mind it takes to make that argument, and you execute your explanation very well. Unfortunately, the lawyer in the OP, as far as the Metro article went, didn't seem to show that kind of dexterity, which is a shame for both the victim and her clients.

I was speaking about rapists in general, not the people in the article.

why wouldn't a rapist have a conscience like every other human being?

why wouldn't a rapist have a conscience like every other human being?

He probably does, but it takes a weak one to be subjugated to the bestial need to violate someone for sexual or psychological gratification. Most of us manage quite well. A few don't.

why wouldn't a rapist have a conscience like every other human being?

Well they were capable of raping someone. And I haven't heard of many rapists giving into guilt and turning themselves into the police. I'm sure there are some, but probably not many.

as far as the Metro article went, didn't seem to show that kind of dexterity, which is a shame for both the victim and her clients.

Metro is produced by the mirror and worse still is a free newspaper

odds are this never actually happened:p

I'd like to hear you say that the day YOU need a lawyer. Which is all it is really, everyone can go "oh what a horrible lawyer saying things like that" up until they day THEY need a defense, at which point they'll be demanding that the lawyer do EVERYTHING possible.

It's hypocricy of the worst order.

I would never do those things those boys did, nor would I ever expect my lawyer to lie to defend me, I won't lie to defend myself and will not allow someone else to do it for me. If I get caught in a crime I will admit it, in fact just that admittance has gotten me out of trouble with the law in the past.

Don't go saying that I'll say or do something when you have no idea who I am.

read what I said above. Her argument is NOT that she was overweight therefore forcing her into sex.

Rather her argument is that she was overweight, and therefore, since she was probably unpopular as a kid, may have consented to the sexual acts, because she was getting attention when she normally did not.

Very fundamental difference.

If she consented to the sexual acts, why did she press charges? And I don't see how she would have; if she was unpopular, then she was probably very shy and cautious towards men, more than keen on having men jump her.

why wouldn't a rapist have a conscience like every other human being?

Sociopaths don't have a conscience or empathy, right?

I would never do those things those boys did, nor would I ever expect my lawyer to lie to defend me, I won't lie to defend myself and will not allow someone else to do it for me. If I get caught in a crime I will admit it, in fact just that admittance has gotten me out of trouble with the law in the past.

Don't go saying that I'll say or do something when you have no idea who I am.

Just beacause you wouldn't do it doesn't mean you wouldn't get accused of it and need a lawyer to defend yourself.

I appreciate the dexterity of mind it takes to make that argument, and you execute your explanation very well.

Yes, well, i'm a lawyer, it's what we do :p

Unfortunately, the lawyer in the OP, as far as the Metro article went, didn't seem to show that kind of dexterity, which is a shame for both the victim and her clients.

well I can't say for sure. We got one line in one paper, rather without context, so I don't know how the full argument went, and I don't want to pass judgement on her advocacy skills based on a single line out of context.

That being said, when you do look at the argument as I've laid it out...well, it's a long shot hail mary pass, it's the scatter shot, fire as many arguments as you can and hope to god one hits right.

But, if you can get one woman on that jury who was overweight in highschool, and remembers what that was like, remembers the feeling of being lonely, ostracized, remembers thinking how she just wanted someone, ANYONE, to pay attention to her, want to be with her physically, and can think that maybe, just maybe, if she were in this girls place...maybe she would have been grateful for the attention at the time too...

That's it, game over, you've won.

What a deplorable bitch.

Can you imagine how utterly insane she is making this statement on the record?

I'm guessing she hasnt had much attention herself in that department.
So-maybe she'd welcome a gang of violent,underage thugs to give her the old "in-out,in-out, real savage like".

I'm trying to imagine the mindset of the victim's father right now on hearing that stupidity. I'd be looking to clothes-line this douche-bag as she emerges from the ladies room.

Yes, well, i'm a lawyer, it's what we do :p



well I can't say for sure. We got one line in one paper, rather without context, so I don't know how the full argument went, and I don't want to pass judgement on her advocacy skills based on a single line out of context.

That being said, when you do look at the argument as I've laid it out...well, it's a long shot hail mary pass, it's the scatter shot, fire as many arguments as you can and hope to god one hits right.

But, if you can get one woman on that jury who was overweight in highschool, and remembers what that was like, remembers the feeling of being lonely, ostracized, remembers thinking how she just wanted someone, ANYONE, to pay attention to her, want to be with her physically, and can think that maybe, just maybe, if she were in this girls place...maybe she would have been grateful for the attention at the time too...

That's it, game over, you've won.

You're hoping for that one warped juror...

If she consented to the sexual acts, why did she press charges?

Guilt? Remorse? Maybe told a lie to protect herself and it snowballed out of control? Revenge because maybe they made fun of her later? Jealousy because the boy started seeing another girl?

False rape accusations DO happen. Maybe not as much as REAL rape accusations, but they do occur.

And I don't see how she would have; if she was unpopular, then she was probably very shy and cautious towards men, more than keen on having men jump her.

Well that's an argument for the prosecution to make

You're hoping for that one warped juror...

which, if you've got a shitty case, is really all you can hope for.

Well they were capable of raping someone. And I haven't heard of many rapists giving into guilt and turning themselves into the police. I'm sure there are some, but probably not many.

doing something doesn't cancel out the fact that they are human beings, and just like me and most probably you they will doubt themselves constantly playing out memories of bad deeds and things that they know are wrong (your minds gets off to playing out bad memories)

the bottom line is they are human they may be monstrous even insane but they still have regrets something even chimpanzees manage

If she consented to the sexual acts, why did she press charges? And I don't see how she would have; if she was unpopular, then she was probably very shy and cautious towards men, more than keen on having men jump her.

Second thoughts etc. The argument goes that she being fat was unused to having relationships, particularly of a sexual nature and hence may have been more open to being drawn into something she didn't initially want to do.

Just beacause you wouldn't do it doesn't mean you wouldn't get accused of it and need a lawyer to defend yourself.

Thats not the argument, the argument is I would not let my lawer lie on my behalf.

Which isn't even the original argument which is people like that need to be removed. I'm willing to give the concession that the news scewed it to make it more sensational... thats what they do, they can be worse than lawyers when it comes to that. But my argument stands... if the lawyer is truly saying 'they should be glad they got raped because they are fat' they need to die.

Guilt? Remorse? Maybe told a lie to protect herself and it snowballed out of control? Revenge because maybe they made fun of her later? Jealousy because the boy started seeing another girl?

False rape accusations DO happen. Maybe not as much as REAL rape accusations, but they do occur.



Well that's an argument for the prosecution to make

I'm very aware of the fact that false reports happen. I'm just saying I find it strange that a judge is pursued in dropping charges for only the argument of her being ugly thus enjoying the attention. It just doesn't sound like that's enough to make an objective decision.

doing something doesn't cancel out the fact that they are human beings, and just like me and most probably you they will doubt themselves constantly playing out memories of bad deeds and things that they know are wrong (your minds gets off to playing out bad memories)

the bottom line is they are human they may be monstrous even insane but they still have regrets something even chimpanzees manage

You're really taking "rapsists have no conscience" far too seriously. My point was that, being rapists, they're not exactly model human beings, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe that they wouldn't just give in to guilt and turn themselves in.

Second thoughts etc. The argument goes that she being fat was unused to having relationships, particularly of a sexual nature and hence may have been more open to being drawn into something she didn't initially want to do.

That's true.

I guess that's why I'll never be lawyer material. I'd never be able to make a point like that against rape, it just disgusts me too much.

and you know, I think I speak for most lawyers when I say..a lot of us have been there. Maybe not the level of defending gang rapists but...we've all that feeling that the person/group/entity we are defending is guilty as hell. We know that at some level.

But, it is the profession that we have chosen. It is the ethical requirements of our job that we maintain the best defense for all, regardless of our personal feelings. We are required to by the profession. So we do our jobs, as best we can. And maybe when it's all over, we take a shot or two of our beverage of choice, and try not to look ourselves in the mirror for a few days....

I would have been a prosecuter had I taken that path.

Thats not the argument, the argument is I would not let my lawer lie on my behalf.

Lawyers dont lie on anyones behalf. They CANT lie on anyones behalf. Remember, since guilt needs to be proven all you need to do is shift the belief in the reasonable POSSIBILITY of guilt.

A lawyer doesn't speak in "is", a lawyer speaks in "maybe". "Is it possible that....?"

if the lawyer is truly saying 'they should be glad they got raped because they are fat' they need to die.

I can not imagine that she is making that argument, primarily because, as was pointed out, whether or not she SHOULD HAVE been glad, doesn't change the elements of a rape charge. What she should have been isn't a defense here, so I don't see any reason for the lawyer to be making it.

Jackass. I hope she get's gangraped.

I'm very aware of the fact that false reports happen. I'm just saying I find it strange that a judge is pursued in dropping charges for only the argument of her being ugly thus enjoying the attention. It just doesn't sound like that's enough to make an objective decision.

well remember, law is not an either/or proposition. It's not either he's guilty or he's innocent.

There is not an objective decision there. It only is do I know enough to assume there is a reasonable POSSIBILITY that he's not guilty. I don't need to decide that he's innocent. Only to believe that I've seen enough to concede that MAYBE he's not guilty.

And if you can get that, as I said, you've won.

and you know, I think I speak for most lawyers when I say..a lot of us have been there. Maybe not the level of defending gang rapists but...we've all that feeling that the person/group/entity we are defending is guilty as hell. We know that at some level.

But, it is the profession that we have chosen. It is the ethical requirements of our job that we maintain the best defense for all, regardless of our personal feelings. We are required to by the profession. So we do our jobs, as best we can. And maybe when it's all over, we take a shot or two of our beverage of choice, and try not to look ourselves in the mirror for a few days....

Try contract law. You're writing contracts to get the most advantage for your client, and technically, you're looking for new and different ways to fuck the people who contract with your client.

Even grayer than criminal court - it makes criminal court look positively black and white by comparison.

Try contract law. You're writing contracts to get the most advantage for your client, and technically, you're looking for new and different ways to fuck the people who contract with your client.


Actually, i don't do criminal law. I'm a corporate transactional attorney. I do contract law quite regularly.

I keep a bottle of scotch in my desk for a reason....

well remember, law is not an either/or proposition. It's not either he's guilty or he's innocent.

There is not an objective decision there. It only is do I know enough to assume there is a reasonable POSSIBILITY that he's not guilty. I don't need to decide that he's innocent. Only to believe that I've seen enough to concede that MAYBE he's not guilty.

And if you can get that, as I said, you've won.

Of course :) I know what a lawyer is supposed to do. You could say she did a good job as a lawyer. I just think it's so strange that the argument sticked in front of a judge. But then again, I don't know what it's like to be a judge.

Of course :) I know what a lawyer is supposed to do. You could say she did a good job as a lawyer. I just think it's so strange that the argument sticked in front of a judge. But then again, I don't know what it's like to be a judge.

I don't think it did...at least yet. I don't think the trial has concluded....

Actually, i don't do criminal law. I'm a corporate transactional attorney. I do contract law quite regularly.

I keep a bottle of scotch in my desk for a reason....

Ah. Waiting for the day when someone finds out what the contract really means, and they come looking for you?

Ive got a feeling that it is either proven or admitted that the boy(s) had sex with the girl(s). What is probably being argued, by the tone of the article from that bastion of good journalism the Metro (For any non Brits, its a right wing free newspaper that you find lying about on buses and trains) Is whether or not the sex was consential.
At least I hope so because thats about the only way the lawyers argument has even an iota of sense attatched to it, regardless of how stupid it is.

AMK

I don't think it did...at least yet. I don't think the trial has concluded....

Ah -_- okay then I guess I'm getting all worked up over nothing.

I'm very curious how this will end though. If I was the judge I'd say that lawyer is being very unprofessional. There's a limit to how far you can stretch the law.

But I'm not the judge of course ^^

I can not imagine that she is making that argument, primarily because, as was pointed out, whether or not she SHOULD HAVE been glad, doesn't change the elements of a rape charge. What she should have been isn't a defense here, so I don't see any reason for the lawyer to be making it.

Neo, I am not comdeming lawyers. In fact I beleive lawyers, defense and prosecution alike perform a very valuable service to people, and are one of the most necesary things in the free world today. Without a lawyer, who is going to speak up and say 'hey maybe they didn't do this' and then PROVE it.

I was feeling too damn lasy to post a whole lot and so just posted my immediate thoughts (a stupid thing to do on any internet forum).

Solution: Get the boys some serious psycological help, if it don't work there is castration. Shoot that lawyer, they have no reason to exist on this planet.

If this is exactly how it sounds get the boys some serious psycological help, if it don't work there is castration. Shoot that lawyer, they [people like that person] have no reason to exist on this planet

Maybe this will clarify things now. I realize that as a Defense Lawyer you feel the necesaty to defend the honor of your prestigious proffession, but you don't need to take every statement litterally... I mean, thats not what lawyers do in the first place right?

Ah. Waiting for the day when someone finds out what the contract really means, and they come looking for you?

no. It's for the days when I manage to convince them that it doesn't.

Maybe this will clarify things now. I realize that as a Defense Lawyer you feel the necesaty to defend the honor of your prestigious proffession, but you don't need to take every statement litterally... I mean, thats not what lawyers do in the first place right?

OK, let me clarify a bit. If she is saying, literally, "so what if she got raped, she was fat and ugly and she should be grateful that someone wanted to stick his penis in her in the first place" then she is a disgrace and should be removed from the profession.

But I don't think that is at all what she is saying. And in fact, I think the title of the newspaper article is quite wrong. It says: "'Rape'" girl should be 'glad of attention'"

Note the word should. That the girl SHOULD have been glad. But that's not what the lawyer said, at all.

If we look at the lawyers own words quoted from the article, she said:

'She was 12st 6lb – not quite the swan she may turn into. She may well have been glad of the attention"

Bolded for emphasis

That is a fundamental and crucial difference. She didn't say that the girl SHOULD have been glad for the attention, as the article's title suggests, she said that the girl MIGHT have been glad of the attention. Likewise, while that's a shitty argument, it's not a particularly horrendous one. If the lawyer said the girl SHOULD have enjoyed it, I'd be up in arms too...but she didn't.

That is a crucial difference, and, frankly speaking, it's not the lawyer who disgusts me, it's the newspaper who publishes a title suggesting something so vastly different from the truth

Please refer to my thought to internet translation, I don't want to continue this anymore.

Ugh, what a repulsive argument.

It's things like this that prove that I could never be a lawyer. I simply don't have the ability to switch off basic decency long enough to suggest that one can't rape a fat girl because she's bound to be pathetically gagging for it.

What is with peoples inability to face common sense when instead they can go away on their moral high horse? Is this some sort of defence mechanism?

AMK

What is with peoples inability to face common sense when instead they can go away on their moral high horse? Is this some sort of defence mechanism?

AMK

which people are you refering to?

which people are you refering to?

Such things as the posting before mine, and generally postings along those lines. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a bit of a daft argument to me, however this whole morality thing is exactly the distortion of the facts that the journalist is trying to create.
What the Barrister said was that the girl may well have been grateful of the attention. NOWHERE in those words is the condoning of rape or sexual assault in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!!!!
If someone who is fat doesnt like being called fat then sorry but thats just hard luck. I am blond haired, if someone calls me Blond, i have no recourse to say they are being immoral. If I hate being called blond that much, i change my hair colour. If i dont like the thought of being called fat, i dont become fat.
The barrister in question was not judging the girl at all. The article in the Metro has created the judement to sensationalise a story.
If the boys are guilty of rape, they should be jailed for a very very long time. If not then they are quite ok in my book.

AMK

A lawyer in England has argued that since the victim of a gang rape was fat at the time of the attack she should have been "glad of the attention". http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=49517&in_page_id=34

I'm not sure what to say about this ****. Maybe someone should gang rape her so she understands it's not positive attention. Then again, maybe she'd be glad if it happened.

i'm... speechless...

United Stupidity Kingdom?

United Kingdom of Great Stupid Britain and Northern Ireland

I think it's fairly accurate, actually.

Such things as the posting before mine, and generally postings along those lines. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a bit of a daft argument to me, however this whole morality thing is exactly the distortion of the facts that the journalist is trying to create.
What the Barrister said was that the girl may well have been grateful of the attention. NOWHERE in those words is the condoning of rape or sexual assault in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!!!!
If someone who is fat doesnt like being called fat then sorry but thats just hard luck. I am blond haired, if someone calls me Blond, i have no recourse to say they are being immoral. If I hate being called blond that much, i change my hair colour. If i dont like the thought of being called fat, i dont become fat.
The barrister in question was not judging the girl at all. The article in the Metro has created the judement to sensationalise a story.
If the boys are guilty of rape, they should be jailed for a very very long time. If not then they are quite ok in my book.

AMK

Interesting. Next time you feel like claiming I am devoid of common sense, I would appreciate it greatly if you'd do so directly rather than beating around the bush. Please explain which portion of my post was so very lacking in sense. I don't believe I said that the lawyer condoned rape. I believe I rather clearly said that the argument that because she perceived this girl to be unattractive, the girl was likely incapable of finding sexual partners and thus might well have wanted to have sex with three strange boys was repulsive - inane, sexist, and very insulting to the alleged victim. The lawyer is entirely entitled to make such an argument; her job is to defend her clients, after all, not to be a reasonable or nice human being. I just think it's a bloody pathetic argument to make.

The lawyer is entirely entitled to make such an argument; her job is to defend her clients, after all, not to be a reasonable or nice human being. I just think it's a bloody pathetic argument to make.

The lawyer is not entitled to make such an argument. She is required to do so. It's not her job to be nice to the alleged victim, not in the slightest.

Whether or not it's an objectively good argument is not really relevant when it's the only argument she can make.

The lawyer is not entitled to make such an argument. She is required to do so. It's not her job to be nice to the alleged victim, not in the slightest.

Whether or not it's an objectively good argument is not really relevant when it's the only argument she can make.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that she is required to make such an argument. She's required to make the best argument that she can make, but I honestly have a hard time imagining that this was it.

I entirely agree, though, that it's not her job to be nice to the alleged victim - which is, as I said originally, why I could never be a lawyer. I'd be rather good at it until I got one case like this, and then I'd pretty much be faced with a choice between failing at my job or loathing myself.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that she is required to make such an argument. She's required to make the best argument that she can make, but I honestly have a hard time imagining that this was it.

I entirely agree, though, that it's not her job to be nice to the alleged victim - which is, as I said originally, why I could never be a lawyer. I'd be rather good at it until I got one case like this, and then I'd pretty much be faced with a choice between failing at my job or loathing myself.

All jobs make you face this dillema. If your a drive thru cashier you have to smile to the customer, even if you don't feel like it, or get fired. It seems to be even more polarizing in law though, but 300 dollars an hour is worth it for those who chose such a job. Right?

All jobs make you face this dillema. If your a drive thru cashier you have to smile to the customer, even if you don't feel like it, or get fired. It seems to be even more polarizing in law though, but 300 dollars an hour is worth it for those who chose such a job. Right?

I don't believe one "loathes oneself" for smiling when one doesn't feel like it, though I could be wrong. Pretty much any job is unpleasant at times - that's why it's called "work," after all. That doesn't mean all jobs necessarily cost one one's self-respect. Criminal law, for me, would. It doesn't for all people, obviously - which is a good thing, as the world needs criminal lawyers.

How...repugnant.

I thought this kind of stuff only happened on bad episodes of Law and Order: SVU.

And then you realize, quite a few Law and Order scripts are based off real-life events, however loosely.

Well, this argument is obviously absurd. Perhaps absurd enough to cause the outrage it takes to get the boys to be named guilty. There is no doubt of their actions, only their guilt. If she is smart, she can pull of making it look like she was protecting her clients, while leading them to admit their guilt of gang raping.

Well, this argument is obviously absurd. Perhaps absurd enough to cause the outrage it takes to get the boys to be named guilty. There is no doubt of their actions, only their guilt. If she is smart, she can pull of making it look like she was protecting her clients, while leading them to admit their guilt of gang raping.

How can you say there is no doubt of their guilt? That is absurd.

AMK

How can you say there is no doubt of their guilt? That is absurd.

AMK

There is no doubt that the sexual act occurred.

And wtf? I exactly said:

There is no doubt of their actions, only their guilt.

There is no doubt that the sexual act occurred.

How can you be so sure of that?

How can you be so sure of that?

but claimed that either nothing had happened or the girls had consented to sex.

There you go. There is at least one, if not two, of the boys admitting to having performed sexual acts with these girls.

It doesn't matter what you look like, its what is inside that really matters...

Unless what's inside you is another person's penis...

There you go. There is at least one, if not two, of the boys admitting to having performed sexual acts with these girls.

um...why don't you read the very thing you quoted?

but claimed that either nothing had happened or the girls had consented to sex.

They never said they admitted to performing sexual acts. The exact phrasing of the argument is "they never had sex with her, and even if they had, that wasn't rape"

I don't see any admission of any sexual acts

El Oh El

um...why don't you read the very thing you quoted?



They never said they admitted to performing sexual acts. The exact phrasing of the argument is "they never had sex with her, and even if they had, that wasn't rape"

I don't see any admission of any sexual acts

Let me quote again

but claimed that either nothing had happened or the girls had consented to sex.

Nice nitpicking.

The exact phrasing is that at least one or two them said "Yes we had sex with her, no it wasn't rape"

Which is exactly what I said at first, minus the precision of who said it, because the article is unclear on how many admitted to having had sex with the girls.

Let me quote again



Nice nitpicking.

The exact phrasing is that at least one or two them said "Yes we had sex with her, no it wasn't rape"

Which is exactly what I said at first, minus the precision of who said it, because the article is unclear on how many admitted to having had sex with the girls.

actually no, you show a misunderstanding of how law is argued.

Every crime has elements, things that must be proven to prove the crime.

For rape it is, in general

1) a sex act occurred
2) a person involved in the sex act did not consent
3) the one comitting the sex act knew, or by some standard (varies by state) should have known that the person did not consent

all three things must be proven. No even vaguely competant lawyer would ever admit to any element unless he/she had to. This does not mean at least one admitted to sex. It means, based on my reading, the argument is basically

"you can not prove #1 occurred, and even if you can, you can't prove #2 occurred"

That's how legal arguments work, you attack each point seperately, as they are seperate points. No proof there was sex, and even if you could prove sex, no proof of lack of consent

It's only nitpicking if you don't understand how legal arguments work.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/FatChicks.jpg

actually no, you show a misunderstanding of how law is argued.

Every crime has elements, things that must be proven to prove the crime.

For rape it is, in general

1) a sex act occurred
2) a person involved in the sex act did not consent
3) the one comitting the sex act knew, or by some standard (varies by state) should have known that the person did not consent

all three things must be proven. No even vaguely competant lawyer would ever admit to any element unless he/she had to. This does not mean at least one admitted to sex. It means, based on my reading, the argument is basically

"you can not prove #1 occurred, and even if you can, you can't prove #2 occurred"

That's how legal arguments work, you attack each point seperately, as they are seperate points. No proof there was sex, and even if you could prove sex, no proof of lack of consent

It's only nitpicking if you don't understand how legal arguments work.

You have yet to read what I have written.

There is an admission, by some of the boys, that a sexual act occurred.

For them, it's about whether they're guilty.

What can I say to announce myself as the most stupid guy on this planet...oh I know...

What a dumbass :rolleyes:

I also have one question: If she was so fat why did they make her victim?

The ignorance in this thread is unrefreshing.

I always love watching people argue about how they can understand the law...and then proving in the next breath how truly fucking stupid they actually are.

Hey, while we're at it, let's be armchair physicists too! You can't join our club if you have in any way actually studied physics though. That would be cheating.

They are required to do that. It's in the job description.

I'm sure that if you had a lawyer defending you, you would want them to do anything and everything under the law to defend you, including positing ridiculous and inane arguments.

You guys have it wrong...it criminal cases, we get the money BEFORE the trial:-)

There is an admission, by some of the boys, that a sexual act occurred.

For them, it's about whether they're guilty.

I think you and Neo seem to interpet the sentence in a different way.
When you read the sentence " [they] claimed that either nothing had happened or the girls had consented to sex" you see the word either as a split in the boys declaration of the events that transpired. So boy A+B said nothing happend while boy C said she had consented to sex.

What Neo sees however and what I, as a law school student, are inclined to see is that the statement is a uniform one. Ergo: Boy A+B+C all say that the sexual act never occured and in case it did occur it was consensual.

It might seem odd to many people as to why one should phrase something in this maner. Why would you say that the possible sex was consensual when before you claimed no sexual act existed?
This was explained by Neo before in his post that a law article is made out of elements that all need to be prouven before somebody can be convicted.

Also I wish to point out that somebody can claim to be guilty but still be innocent. I doubt the boys are innocent in this case (although this is a dangereous assement to make. Do we know all the facts? Is the girl maybe a habitual liar etc etc. It may sound harsh and hearthless but the law needs to be absolutely sure that somebody is -prouvable- guilty), however everyone is innocent until -prouven- otherwise. It doesn't matter even if you claim to be guilty, there still must be facts that support your guilt.

I hope this clarifies the issue a bit and in case I have misinterpeted your words then I do apologize.

Hey, while we're at it, let's be armchair physicists too! You can't join our club if you have in any way actually studied physics though. That would be cheating.

I'll join.. if you can disregard that I remember two things from physics.

-9.8m/s
and
F=ma