Log in

No account? Create an account
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

There are not enough curse words. Link is not work-safe, it's a news story about the Orange County gang-rape trial. I also don't recommend reading it if you don't want to be nauseated.

Personally, I would be okay with killing the defendants and their attorneys very very slowly. Indulging every last sadistic whim I have.

I suppose that doesn't make me a very good person.

I think I'm okay with that.

Current Mood: nauseatednauseated

...great monkey gods...

It gave me hope that the article described the jury as "horrified", which it damn well should have been.

The whole gist of that attorney's argument smacks of "I'm probably going to lose, might as well go balls-out here". I can't think of anything else that would begin to explain it.

My god ... that is aweful.

Scum that they obviously are, they still deserve the best defense possible. Dont blame the attourneys. Someone has to defend them. And hell, its not like the defense attourney can stand up and say "fuck it, just fry the little bastards" is it..

So, let them have their ludicrous defense, then let them lose..

It's not them getting a defense that bugs me.

It's the "let's do everything we can to destroy the girl" thing that bugs me.

A good defense should not have to mean dragging the victim through the mud. In this case it would have been good defense to have the boys rub their eyes with onions so they appeared to be crying and convince the jury that they were very very sorry and would never forgive themselves and so on and please make sure the poor bereaved boys at least had a chance of parole within five years or some other painfully inadequate time frame.

While I hope that their ludicrous notion that she consented has already been discarded by the jury, there is still all these testimonies about the girl which, unless the case is sealed, will be on public record. Even if the case is sealed after the fact, reports will be in the newspapers and probably tv as the case progresses. Even though she is called "Jane Doe", it will be easy for anyone who wants to to figure out who she is. Unless she somehow qualifies for a witness protection complete makeover, this is going to haunt her for life not only in what happened, but in all of the character assassination which is going on.

A few other random notes: it horrifies me that the defense attorneys can watch this video and not even throw a shred of sympathy to the girl. As much as I joke about lawyers, I do like to think that most of them retain their humanity to some degree.

Even if the girl is "loose", even if she did willingly drink alcohol as a minor, even if she'd had consensual sex with each of the boys before (and I'm not implying she did, just qualifying the next phrase), even if she did do all of those things, she did not deserve what happened to her. None of those hypothetical situations are punishable by being drugged, raped, and brutalized, let alone being taped for posterity.

I think the American legal system is very flawed. Part of it is the mentality that if people are promiscuous they are somehow partially responsible when someone rapes them; as if consensual sex can somehow invite a crime of violence which happens to involve sex. Or the gay panic defense, whose creator(s) and users deserve a special place in hell all of their own.

I also do not believe that a good defense means proving (or trying to prove) the accused innocent at all costs. If there had been no video tape, if the boys had been arrested based on a rumor circulating around the school, then a proper defense would be to contradict the rumor. Since this one involved a taping of the crime and the distribution of the tape, the defense attorneys should be concentrating on getting the least possible sentence, not doing everything possible to ruin the victim even more than the rapists did.

I'm not American. I'm also not a lawyer of any sort. So my knowledge of American law may be fatally flawed here, but...

I also do not believe that a good defense means proving (or trying to prove) the accused innocent at all costs.

But it does. That's what an adversarial legal system is all about. Until the defendants decide to plead guilty, a defense team must try everything they can to prove them innocent (or quit, and be replaced by someone who will). Is it not the case that convictions have been overturned later because defense attourneys refused to use a strategy that had been used successfully in court before on moral grounds - as the defense was not competant?

It is not the defense teams job to look after the interests of the victim.

It's the judge's role to make sure nothing improper happens. So, if what the defense team is doing is wrong, then either the system prevents the judge from stopping it, or the judge is failing to use his/her discretion.

If something happening at a trial is disgusting, unfair, unreasonable.. then the person responsible is the person in charge. The judge, who allows it to happen.

No-one (except maybe the sick twisted defendants) wants this to happen. But it can't be stopped by relying on the morality of defense attourneys. They arent allowed to have any, in the courtroom.

The blame, here, in my opinion is firmly on the defendants - who refuse to plead guilty under any reasonable circumstances.. and on the judge who allows this to happen in her/her courtroom.

Actually, the defendants did offer to plead guilty, on the condition that the sentence be limited to nine months. The prosecutor bluntly rejected that offer (and rightfully so, because it's totally ridiculous).

It seems quite obvious that the defense strategy there was "give us light sentences or we'll crucify your victim in court".

We know that one of the defendants is the son of of a deputy sheriff. Has anyone checked to see if there's a relationship between the judge and that defendant? LEOs and judges are often buddy-buddy.

Just because that is what the system about does not mean it is the proper way to do it. I stand by my original statement, which is that the American legal system is flawed. The rest of what I might say was already written more eloquently by kelly_lynn.

I'm very sympathetic to the obligations of the defense attorney to provide a vigorous and effective defense. But as far as I can tell, this defense goes beyond that straight into the realms of the illegal. The "best defense possible" doesn't include violating the law.

California's rape shield law prohibits the introduction of evidence of the victim's sexual conduct, with two exceptions (specific evidence of past sexual conduct between the victim and the accused, to prove the accused's reasonable belief in consent, and to impeach credibility). The evidence they're offering is not of past sexual conduct between the victim and the accused (it's more of the "everybody knows she's a slut" type of stuff that is prohibited) and should have been barred by the judge.

I'm still not ready to totally condemn the defense attorneys because I'd have to review the specific law itself (and not merely the summaries of it that I've read so far) as well as the actual transcripts of the statements made in court. But it certainly smells fishy.

I think ripping them limb from limb would be too quick.
Most of the punishments that come to mind involve really nasty variants on forced femme, couple with a long, miserable life they can't escape from.

27 years doesn't sound long enough given what i read. Sad part is though there are murderers who serve less time than that. At least no one was foolish enough to settle for the 9 months the prosecution suggested to begin with.

His ~angel~

That is utterky heinous. And to know there are attorneys mysogynistic enough to perpetuate that shit is horrifying.