I already have a migraine, and now it's worse. This is sick, dismissive of the girls, their feelings, and their very humanity. Jesus, how can adults be willing to hear people talk that way? Don't they know what they're saying?

Because it is so easy to push one who is down...
Because people like to talk before they hear themselves speak.

What. The. Fuck.
What on earth was the barrister thinking? What a nasty, callous fucking bastard.

Wow. This is not a good way to start a morning. This is what killed me:

"She told the jury one of the girls, who testified via video link, had “slimmed down a lot� since the incident in southeast London last November.

The barrister added: “She was 12st 6lb – not quite the swan she may turn into. She may well have been glad of the attention.�"

Right, so she's lost weight because loved being raped (since she wanted the attention, you know), and wants to gussy herself up for the next time she gets gang-raped. (Because honestly, it's not like she was traumatized and perhaps has been stressed and worried and not eating properly). Perfect! That's just the motivation I need to lose weight myself!

On top of that, 13 years old and a rapist? Wow. Just unspeakable.

What the fuck? Oh yeah, I sure do wish I could get raped. How lucky!

According to the article, these boys first were vandalizing a bus, then they robbed the two girls and then demanded that the girls service them sexually to get their stolen cell phones back. Yep, we're talking about some sweet young boys here.

"After the attack..." Yes, it is an attack, a robbery, a crime....

Had it been two young male victims, I highly doubt a person's so-called attention-getting/weight loss tactics would enter the conversation.

Disgusting, really...

Notice that commenters over at the article say "mugged" and "alleged rape." Have the boys admitted to the mugging? Why is it only ever "alleged" when its rape? I. Hate. The. World.

Terrible that she said it. What could be worse? Maybe that she expects to be believed?

Terrible that she said it. What could be worse? Maybe that she expects to be believed?

Holy Fucking Hell.

I guess the next time I'm feeling a fat and unattractive, I'll just go and get raped. It's the diet/self-esteem boosting plan of the new century!

I want to kick that barrister's ass. Seriously.

and they say we have "progressed"....

It's the duty of a defense attorney to make any argument whatsoever that might help a client, regardless of how it sounds outside the courtroom.

Actually, Doug, many attorneys have moral and ethical limits to how far they'll go. When was the last time you heard a lawyer employing the defense that the murder victim enjoyed it? Or a robbery victim felt that their taste in material goods had been validated?

what happened to the film on the mobile?

“Actually, Doug, many attorneys have moral and ethical limits to how far they'll go.�
Exactly, there are ethical lines and those who don’t have them are called crooks. And you are certainly not *required* to play a misogynist asshole to defend your client. Maybe Law Fairy can comment on that?

Well...there goes my lunch. Unbelievable.

I wonder how someone sleeps well at night after saying something like this.

You're wrong Doug. Lawyers aren't obligated to lie or practice unethically. In fact, they're not allowed to, technically. Many still do, but that doesn't mean we can't protest it.

OK. Let's play another round of "Which scenario is likely, and which scenario is so absurd that even unicorns don't believe in it." Here are your options:

a) These law-breaking boys gang-raped these two girls.

b) These two girls, sitting idly in the park, decided of their own volition to happily engage in sex with muggers, were flattered by the male attention, and then, for reasons unknown, decided to call the police and file rape charges, because women are just like that. Also, they're fatties.

It boggles my mind that the lawyer thinks that scenario B is even a possibility.

In the same vein, EG, how could anyone claim there's not enough evidence to prosecute 8 baseball players who gang raped a 17 year old drunk and mostly passed out girl even though the rape was only stopped by three other women who burst in (a few players were holding the door shut) and saved her.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5964944?nclick_check=1#recent_comm

Between this, the dungeon rapist, the "fraud" rapist, etc etc etc its pretty fucking hard to deny that rape is not illegal and that there is no justice for those it happens to.

God people suck. (Especially that fucking idiot lawyer. ASSHOLE.) I hate the world right now.

If anyone wants to share an opinion with the lawyer in question, her contact information is as follows:

10 Kings Bench Walk, Temple
London
EC4Y 7EB

phone: 020 73532501

"Actually, Doug, many attorneys have moral and ethical limits to how far they'll go. When was the last time you heard a lawyer employing the defense that the murder victim enjoyed it? Or a robbery victim felt that their taste in material goods had been validated?"

Those are pretty stupid arguments, but if making them improves a defendant's chances, then wouldn't the attorney be obligated to offer them? I certainly don't think that the argument the defense attorney presented is even remotely credible, from what I've heard, but once in a while a bizarre defense actually works; this seems more like an attorney grasping at straws than anything else. If it actually works, then we have a problem. These 13 year olds probably need to be kept in a cage until their brains start working properly.

I think what you're saying is nonsense. So far as I can tell the lawyer said a girl who hadn't been raped was glad for the attention, and said she'd slimmed down a lot since an incident in which she wasn't raped.

I think the overwhelming majority of rape defendants did it, but they should at least be able to argue that they didn't. You can't really get pissy about people being tried being about to claim they didn't commit a crime.

"It boggles my mind that the lawyer thinks that scenario B is even a possibility."

It boggles my mind that you think that the lawyer thinks that scenario B is a possibility as she's arguing they weren't mugged.

And the lawyer's clearly not fighting that dirty, if she were pulling out all the stops she'd be arguing they made up the accusation to avoid being accused of child molestation. I think I'm basically on your side regarding rape, but 'lawyer argues clients aren't guilty' doesn't strike me as that scandalous. Whipping it up and pretending she said 'girl enjoyed being raped' makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

Um, I lost a ton of weight after getting raped (and I wasn't "fat" before...which means now I'm tiny, tired and pissed off all the time). When people are miserable, they tend to either under-eat or over-eat. Seriously, what planet does this fucking asswad waste of breath lawyer come from that she thinks women lose weight because they're HAPPY?!? And as EG pointed out, if they "enjoyed the attention," why the hell would they file a rape charge? (Unless the rapist boys think being charged with rape is fun and asked the girls to do it...) *rolleyes*

Also, is it just me, or couldn't an argument like this, if it helps get those shitscum boys off the hook, make so-called fat women and any "unattractive" women basically unrapeable as far as the law is concerned? I mean, if this is considered a valid legal argument, couldn't it be used any time an unattractive woman is raped? After all, she's basing this claim on nothing other than the victims' weight. But then of course, if a "hawt" woman is raped, the argument is that she was "asking for it" by being hot or that the man "couldn't control" himself. It's just so fucking absurd. I fully believe that with the way the justice system works, any woman, at any time, could be doing something that would make it "okay" to rape her. For instance, I'm at work right now, running a computer lab that's in a remote corner of the library, and the majority of my clients at the moment are men. If somebody came in here and raped me right now, it could be argued that I shouldn't have been working in a remote corner of the library, that I shouldn't have allowed so many men in, and that I should have known something was wrong before it started and called security over. No matter what, as women we're always doing something to "ask for it."

Anyhow, I hope that lawyer and the piece of shit boys burn in a place worse than hell.

First let me clarify that I'm not a lawyer--yet. I'm not even in law school yet, actually, so I'm definetely no authority on legal issues and the obligations of a lawyer.

All I do know is that, while defense lawyers are required to do their best to defend their clients--which sometimes includes grasping at straws--using this obligation as an excuse to justify such potentially damaging statements is just not acceptable in a civilized society. The thought that some people may agree with her implication that the rapes were enjoyable and the victims actually benifitted from them is very frightening, indeed.

Her words and actions could set an awful precedent about how rape is handled in the courtroom. Other barristers (sp?) could see her winning strategy as a good one to adopt to defend rapists. The more this strategy works, the more these same rapists and other potential rapists will feel that rape is acceptable.

What I'm saying here is that, yes, an attorney has a duty to defend his or her client to their best abilities. However, in my opinion, lawyers have a greater obligation to the greater social good. After all, what are courts but an instrument of maintaining social welfare? One's legal strategies should not undermine society as a whole.

I blogged about this last night. And I blogged a couple of hours ago about the case someone linked to in the notes where gang rapists who were caught in the act didn't have charges pressed against them for "lack of evidence." Then I just read that OK outlawed abortions in hospitals.

My heart hurts, today.

Wow, DougS, maybe you should be held back and not allowed into third grade. "Those are pretty stupid arguments?" I'm amazed at how articulate you are. Try coming up with an argument before you post next time.

And leederick, if she were a good attorney she would be making arguments based on evidence. Saying they couldn't have been raped because they're fat isn't evidence. It's pure and complete assholery and incompetence. Not to mention grotesquely inhuman.

And yes to whoever said that rape still isn't illegal. If these asswads go free, as I bet they will, it will only prove that fact. I hope for nothing more than to be proven wrong, though.

That is absolutely disgusting.

Wow, DougS, maybe you should be held back and not allowed into third grade. "Those are pretty stupid arguments?" I'm amazed at how articulate you are. Try coming up with an argument before you post next time.

Uh-oh; looks like I failed to state my point correctly. The poster that I was quoting was giving the statements as examples of arguments that a defense lawyer ought not to use, and I agreed that the arguments offered as examples of stupid arguments, were, in fact, stupid, just like the lawyer's idiotic statements in this rape trial. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough!

There's another great one out of Australia were the defense claimed the victim must have been moaning in pleasure. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,21769230-5001031,00.html

Nice world we're living in.

"And leederick, if she were a good attorney she would be making arguments based on evidence. Saying they couldn't have been raped because they're fat isn't evidence. It's pure and complete assholery and incompetence."

You may well be right. But the tone of this thread is hardly outrage that she's doing an insufficiently vigorous job of defending her clients. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

leederick, she's not defending her client. She's basically *changing* the definition of rape to mean "sex that's forced upon a pretty, thin girl."

I agree with Sarah. It pisses me off in a huge way when someone implies that anyone else "deserves" to be raped, but the lawyer's argument is even more disgusting because of her implication that only pretty, thin women can be raped. If someone is fat or unattractive, then having forcible sex with them might actually be doing them a favor--such as helping them lose weight.

Basically she's saying, "What rape? That fat, ugly girl should be happy for any male attention she gets." Since when is attacking a victim's physical appearance a good defense for a client?

Since the victim is female, Feliza. This tactic doesn't bother the menz too much cause hey - it's only happening to us wimmin afterall.

Leederick, she's not even offering a defense.

In effect, she's stating that yes, the attack did occur, but the fat chick should've been grateful. Aside from being a total asshole, she also a rotten lawyer.

Also, is it just me, or is anyone else having flashbacks?

But (yet another thing that really pisses me off) isn't the defense attorney a woman herself, though? I would think (as a woman in a male-dominated profession) she herself wouldhave some sensitivity to feminist issues.

But alas, no. No wonder people are always telling me that lawyers are scum.

Sigh... really, ladies, it's not about fat women being unrapeable.

If she were a skinny babe, the boys wouldn't have been able to control themselves and therefore should be let off.

Ultimately, what we really need are:
1) professional jurors for rape cases, who hear dozens of cases (and dozens of lame arguments) enough times to realise that everyone makes the same lousy arguments and ignores them; and
2) better evidentiary rules and definitions of rape. Fact is, there are rape cases where the victim's underwear has been admissible - if you're wearing a thong, it's not rape. Admissible evidence should be limited to issues that relate directly to the transfer of consent from woman to man (assuming man-on-woman rape).

Sadly, we live in a society that believes that sexual adults have sex with people whom they barely know. If we presumed differently, rape claims would be a lot more credible.

Oenophile, please tell me you didn't just go there. Please. I'm begging you. I'm not even going to state the inference directly, because I'm so desperately hoping that you'll respond by stating that you didn't mean it that, and rephrasing your last paragraph in such a way as to not sound batshit crazy.

Isn't it sad when you read a comment before you see who posted it & know it's oenophile by the utter lack of logic?

I'm not even going to state the inference directly, because I'm so desperately hoping that you'll respond by stating that you didn't mean it that, and rephrasing your last paragraph in such a way as to not sound batshit crazy.

Kimmy, I frankly have zero idea of what you are talking about.

People defend rape on the grounds of consent. The way that people get acquitted is ridiculous -- they pretty much only need to say, "She wanted it," and it's all over. (None of this, FYI, is meant to disparage the very real and horrific examples of marital rape or rape between long-term couples.) There seems to be no external check on whether it is even rational for a person to just "want it" from someone who happens to be sitting next to them on a bus or poured them a drink from a keg at a frat party.

If a defendant had to point to some positive, affirmative interaction between the two people, instead of saying, "she wanted it," rape would be a lot harder to defend.

If I'm "bats-t crazy" because I think that, yeah, most women don't have sex with people they don't know, fine. I'm not saying that all sex outside of marriage should be presumed to be rape... just saying that, in a courtroom, it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge that having sex with someone whom you've known for 10 minutes is not normal behaviour.

But lawyer Sheilagh Davies, acting for one of the defendants, said the girls consented to sex “maybe to gain attention, maybe to gain affection�.

Davies also told the jury that the girl had “slimmed down a lot� since the [encounter that Davies claims was consensual] and that she "may well have been glad of the attention.�

The attorney started off by claiming that the encounter was consensual. She then claimed that the girl would be glad for the attention of that supposedly consensual sex. However idiotic her statements, the attorney is not saying that fat women can't be raped. I am happy to fault her for agreeing to defend those rapists in the first place.

By the way, oeniphile, many people consent to have sex with people they barely know.* Should one-night stands be illegal?

*I personally don't understand it, all casual encounters I've had were ridiculously uncomfortable, but others seem to get off on it.

Kesh,

Get off it. Did I say that one-night stands ought to be illegal? No. Your lack of logic is nauseating.

What is "many?" How many women consent to sex with people they barely know? As a percentage, I would say it's pretty small.

If consenting adults want to screw each other, fine. But when someone is claiming rape and barely knows the perpetrator, what is more likely:
1) she had voluntary sex and lies about rape; or
2) she was raped.

Yeah, I'm going with #2. I don't see why men shouldn't have to demonstrate that 1) this girl, despite barely knowing him, consented to sex; and 2) she's now lying.

While I don't have a problem with casual sex (in fact it can sometimes be awesome) I guess oenophile is onto something logically.

If the complainant and defendent know each other, people will always say "oh she's trying to get him back for something" but if they don't know each other, what could any motivation for lying about rape /possibly/ be? That being said, most rape is acquaintance rape, so I doubt I'd feel good about accusation between strangers being treated patently differently than accusations between acquaintances.

It's really hard to tell what the lawyer was trying to argue from the news account, but it's clear she wasn't:

Whipping it up and pretending she said 'girl enjoyed being raped' makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

I think the defence was that the complainant consented, which leaves the defence in a difficult posiiton because (a) at least some of the accused told the police there was no sex, (b) the complainant denied this, and (c) it's not very plausible that a 16 year-old girl would consent to sex with three 13 year-olds she didn't know in a park.

From the article, it's *possible* the defence's argument was something along the lines that the complainant wanted to have sex, but couldn't find anyone other than these boys in the park. Now this isn't very plausible either, but I suppose it's more plausible if the complainant is overweight than if she's skinny.

A case like this is really difficult for the defence to argue (unless the accused admits his guilt and you can plead him guilty), so it's possible the defence lawyer had an error of judgment and said something completely outrageous, but I don't think it's fair to judge her based on one newspaper article. Reporters have a way of getting quotes like this wrong, or taking them so out of context as to lose the intended meaning.

"While I don't have a problem with casual sex (in fact it can sometimes be awesome)"

Sorry to breakup your sentence Nina
At the risk of upsetting my wife by commenting here, I got to say that is the first time I have ever heard a woman say that.

I wish more women could say stuff like that, but unfortunately they would most likely be accused of bringing rape upon themselves for expressing such sentiments.

"I got to say that is the first time I have ever heard a woman say that."

Hang out at some liberal New England colleges or New York City and it really wouldn't be that uncommon a sentiment. Like I've said before, we have many different cultures in our country.

I never really hung out around college, even when I was a student, but I spent some time my sister in NYC, and even there I never heard any women express delight in causual sex. Maybe they did feel the way that you do, but I think they were too afraid to express such sentiments. I continue to read you comments, and I wonder what makes you so different (even here at this site).

Actually you are probably not that much different than any other woman, but your sexual pride is impressive.

Why is expressing you sexuality so easy for you, and can other women do so without fear?

How do I teach my daughter to develop into a woman like you?

Of course as I write that I don't want my daughter to have causual sex.

"Leederick, she's not even offering a defense.

"In effect, she's stating that yes, the attack did occur, but the fat chick should've been grateful. Aside from being a total asshole, she also a rotten lawyer."

Exactly. Hopefully the prosecuting attorney will use this to her or his advantage.

"But (yet another thing that really pisses me off) isn't the defense attorney a woman herself, though? I would think (as a woman in a male-dominated profession) she herself wouldhave some sensitivity to feminist issues."

Maybe the defense attorney cares more about what makes her different from the victim than about what makes her similar to the victim?

"but if they don't know each other, what could any motivation for lying about rape /possibly/ be?"

Some people out there would assume the motivation is "she said she was raped because she doesn't want to be honor-killed for her one-night stand."

Oenophile, women have sex with people they "barely" know all the time. You ever heard of someone having sex on the second date? The third date? That's pretty damned common (probably more so than one night stands, which I agree can be fun), but I don't think anyone would argue that you have a deep and important understanding of another person after three encounters.

The idea that casual sex is to blame for the difficulty in prosecuting rape is just shifting the blame from one woman (the victim) to many other women (those having sex with men they don't know well). And it's just as disgusting. The fact that you don't realize that is kind of scary.

Re Ranter's question about how to help his daughter develop healthy sexuality:

My dad didn't exactly help me in this area (in fact, it's shocking that I'm not a crazy neurotic when it comes to sex), but here are a few ideas:

1. Teach your daughter that her body is something to be proud of, and great JUST THE WAY IT IS. Never criticize her appearance or say that "boys won't like" whatever she's doing (my dad did that to me. and remember, not all girls grow up to like boys). Particularly, never criticize her weight.

2. While teaching her that sex is a reponsibility and she needs to be sure to use protection, don't treat sex like some scary, secret thing that she's not meant to know about. Don't try to hide the existence of sex from her-- it won't work and will just teach her that sex is "bad" and "dirty."

3. Model good behavior. Don't talk judgmentally about other women's sexual choices (i.e. "good girl" or "slut"). That's definitely going to give her a bad impression about her sexual choices.

4. Teach her about consent, including affirmative consent and how to firmly say "no." Teach her that her sexuality is HER OWN and no one can take that from her-- and no one has the right to try to take it through rape. She needs to know that her sexual choice are her own and no one else's.

What'd I miss, ladies?

ponies and rainbows,

"Also, is it just me, or couldn't an argument like this, if it helps get those shitscum boys off the hook"

Glad you've become judge and jury by reading a quote.

If the boys "get off the hook" then surely they've been judged as to having not committed rape, and are innocent?

If the boys "get off the hook," it means that the prosecution failed to make a convincing case. In a wildly sexist society, that says nothing about their actual innocence.

EG, so boys and men accused of rape are never innocent as far as you are concerned, even when the are found not guilty by the court?

EG, you take anti-male sexism to another level. Nevermind the "innocent until proven guilty", according to you it's "guilty after proven innocent".

Steve, I suggest you go back to troll school until you learn how to at least a) not troll with strawmen or b) at least be amusing.

Yawn

EG, you take anti-male sexism to another level.

What can I say? One does one's little best. I'd like to thank the academy, and my agent...

What is it with these silly trolls and their confusion about what innocent unti proven guilty means? Obviously, a person is either innocent or guilty of a crime, regardless of how a trial plays out. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to how jurors in a courtroom are required to examine the evidence before them: in the absence of evidence proving the accused to be guilty, they must assume him or her to be innocent. The phrase has nothing to do with a) whether or not the defendent is actually innocent of the crime or b) what private citizens think of the matter.

False rape accusations do exist.

Given what the lawyer has decided to use as the defense--or rather, the way he decided to phrase it--I would say this is not one of them.

And y'know, I try to like the justice system, and I try to be impressed that defense lawyers would do the job, but the only ones who get any media attention are the courtroom-raping shitbags like this guy.

And if, by some chance, the guys are innocent, I would advise them to get a lawyer who doesn't use the "she wanted it, the slut!" argument.

Kimmy,

The fact that you can't tell the difference between a DATE and being assaulted in a restroom scares the crap out of me.

The idea that casual sex is to blame for the difficulty in prosecuting rape is just shifting the blame from one woman (the victim) to many other women (those having sex with men they don't know well). And it's just as disgusting. The fact that you don't realize that is kind of scary.

As someone who was almost raped because a guy didn't realise that all women aren't into casual sex, yeah, I find this culture to be scary. I don't like fending off drunk men and I certainly don't like trying to point out that the Sex and the City lifestyle is a myth. Fact is, the modern culture has no room for chastity, and then we wonder why the "She wanted it" defense works. We also wonder why women are date-raped in the first place... after all, everyone's into casual sex, right?

But I said something against casual sex, so I'm "scary." Get a grip, Kimmy, and learn the difference between a date and an attack.

You said:

Sadly, we live in a society that believes that sexual adults have sex with people whom they barely know. If we presumed differently, rape claims would be a lot more credible.

We live in a society that believes this because it happens. Period. Women and men have sex with people they meet in bars, people they meet at parties, people they meet at work and go out for a drink with afterwards. You're blaming the difficulty in prosecuting rape cases on the fact that it happens. This is putting the blame on women. It's scary that you're so willing to do that just because those women made different choices than you have.

Please point out anywhere in my posts where I conflated dating with being attacked.

Hey, ranter, I admire your commitment to your daughter. You are willing to ask how you can be the kind of parent who supports a daughter's sexual autonomy and well-being, even if that means that she ends up expressing her sexuality in ways that might make you uncomfortable. I really respect that.

I think you have answered your own question. That is, having the kind of commitment to your daughter that you seem to have is probably a kick-ass first step toward her developing healthy attitudes about herself.

AAAAAAAAAAARGH.

Yeah, I hate the world too.

"Fact is, the modern culture has no room for chastity, and then we wonder why the "She wanted it" defense works. We also wonder why women are date-raped in the first place... after all, everyone's into casual sex, right?"

Oenophile, do you honestly believe that the "She wanted it" defense is only as old as the (relative) normalcy of casual sex? Come off it. Women don't have an easier time getting rape accusations believed in cultures that have "room for chastity" -- they end up having to play the old game of "Yes, but was she really chaste? Was she chaste enough?"

As for date rape, I would argue that that is less a product of a "casual sex culture" and more a product of male entitlement culture. After all, it's been statistically shown that a woman is in more danger of being assaulted if she allowed a man to pay for everything on a date, and also that other people are more likely to excuse the rapist, because they feel that "she owed him".

It's true that there is a frat-boy contingent of opportunist-rapists who view women drinking as potential prey, but again, I'd argue that that's a function of the male-privilege culture: "I'm allowed to stick my dick in anything that's too far gone to fight back!"

If there is ever to be true justice for rape victims, it can't just be for "the good girls" -- that seems to be the assumption that rape trials still function on, and anyone can see that it doesn't work: no matter what kind of figurative padlocks you place over your crotch, the prosecution will always find ways to cast aspersions on your sexual, social, and mental health. Society must learn to wrap its collective head around the concept that just because a woman agreed to have sex with Guys 1-5, that does not mean that there is automatic consent to sex with Guy #6. It's not that hard to understand.

"...no matter what kind of figurative padlocks you place over your crotch, the prosecution will always find ways to cast aspersions on your sexual, social, and mental health."

Not to pick nits, ShifterCat, but I assume that in most cases you actually mean the defense?

Whoops! You're right, Shadowen, I meant the defense. Thanks for pointing it out.

Hey Cara:

That's a great list. I'd add that I think it's important to teach kids it's okay for them to make their own decisions, based on what they think will make themselves happiest (w/o hurting the rights of others, of course). By the same token, it's okay if things about sex and relationships don't always go the way you hoped, and it's okay to seek help and advice from others. Basically, independence and decision-making is okay. But you're also going to make mistakes and learn no matter what.

(My mom has always been like "well you'll meet the right guy and then everything will work out" I really dislike that attitude. She also thinks people these days have expectations for relationships that are to high, and that's why the divorce rate is high (which she also thinks is a bad thing). Personally I think it's okay to have high expectations.

I guess it's worth noting here then, that I'm not sure how much influence parents can have, ultimately, since my attitudes about sex are relatively different from my mothers.

I guess she's relatively liberal and comfortable with sexuality for a female in our culture, but I'd say I'm moreso. I also had to make it through a lot of mental obstacles to get to where I am now though, and I still experience difficulty in my ability to deal well in the heat of certain situations. (the old 'beliefs can be different than practice' thing)

Hey, check it out. I just Googled the lawyer's name, and she got cited for drunk driving this past January--the record is only accessible via Google's cache, BTW. What a lovely person she must be:

NAME OF BARRISTER
Sheilagh Davies
Nine Lincoln's Inn Fields

Called: November 1974, Inn: Middle Temple

TYPE OF HEARING
Summary Hearing

IN BREACH OF
Paragraph 301(a)(iii) of the Code of Conduct (8th Edition)

DETAILS OF OFFENCE
On 29 July 2005 Miss Sheilagh Davies drove a vehicle after consuming excess alcohol was arrested and subsequently convicted on 4 August 2005.

SENTENCE
Reprimanded

DATE OF DECISION
25 January 2006

STATUS
Final

Oops, I mean January last year, LOL.

From reading the posts and comments on this site, I get the impression that most here believe that every rape allegation is true, and that everyone accused of rape is guilty.

My question to those who feel this way:

Is there any defense to a rape charge that is ethical, or should lawyers of accused rapists just pressure their clients to plead guilty?

RM, your question seems like a thread derail, and also seems to miss the point. I don't think anyone here would object to a defense that didn't draw upon misogynist concepts of women and our sexuality (she really wanted it, she'd have been lucky to be raped, she was asking for it by wearing a short skirt/drinking with guys), or question whether or not a rape actually took place, which these defenses so often do, and which seems unique to rape cases. We wouldn't have any problem with a defense that was actually about the particular defendent--showing that he was not the one who raped the woman because he was miles away at the time, or because the semen wasn't his, or any of the ways people accused of robbery are defended by their lawyers, almost of none of which include attacking the character or looks of the robbed party, or claiming that a robbery didn't actually take place.

or question whether or not a rape actually took place

EG, again it seems to me that you believe that every rape allegation is true, and that the only ethical defense is one of mistaken identity.

Why is a defense of consensual sex unethical? Do you believe that everyone who uses this defense is lying, and is actually a rapist?

Because I consider it so astronomically unlikely that a non-mentally-ill woman would have consensual sex and then, for some reason, lie about it and claim to be raped, that I think that such a scenario is not covered by the phrase "reasonable doubt." There's nothing reasonable about it--it's based on misogynist assumptions about women's characters and female sexuality.

I see no reason to think that false rape allegations are any more common than false allegations of any other crime, and in no other sorts of trials that I know of is it ever argued that a crime did not take place.

I don't believe that everyone who uses this defense is lying: I'm quite sure that due to male privilege, many of these men genuinely believe that what they did was consensual, because women mean yes when they say no, or because if women don't say no really loudly and then fight tooth and nail, they've consented, or because any woman in a given situation must know that she's consenting to sex. But that doesn't mean those beliefs are correct.

oenophile (just to piggyback on what ShifterCat already said)back in Freud's day it was elaborately theorized that little girls who were sexually abused secretly wanted it, too. Is a culture of casual sex to blame for that? I don't think there was a culture of casual sex at that time, just the opposite. Victim-blaming when the victim is female, regardless of age, has a long history that predates Sex and the City. And how come you never answer people when you accuse them of something ridiculous and they ask you to point out where they said that?

I see no reason to think that false rape allegations are any more common than false allegations of any other crime

Neither do I. I think it's very rare. But since I think we agree that false allegations of rape do occur (very rarely), why is a defense of consensual sex unethical? Why is it impossible that this is one of those rare cases of a false accusation?

in no other sorts of trials that I know of is it ever argued that a crime did not take place

I think that rape is different from most other crimes in that often the only evidence is the accusation.

But I can think of the Phil Spectre and Jayson Williams murder cases off the top of my head. In both, the defence claimed a murder did not take place, even with a dead body in evidence.

"But since I think we agree that false allegations of rape do occur (very rarely), why is a defense of consensual sex unethical?"

I would argue that it's because there is still widespread confusion about what the difference is between sex and rape, and about what does and does not count as "consent". As one victim described it: "Sex is to rape as a kiss is to a punch in the mouth". Unfortunately, society still doesn't understand that.

The way most rape trials play out (even today) is something like this: "Well, Your Honour, we have evidence that the alleged victim went out drinking with her friends *gasp!* and wore thong underwear beneath her baggy cargo pants *shock!* and was even known to take men home with her on occasion *outrage!*. Obviously, she must have consented to have sex with my client. Why would she cry rape in this case and not for any of the men she had sex with previously? Well, Your Honour, we also have found evidence that the alleged victim was on anti-depressants fifteen years ago. Clearly she is mentally unstable, and you never know what kind of nonsense a crazy woman will spout."

The "consent" defense is unethical because it's inevitably used to put the woman through what many victims describe as "a second, public rape". While I wouldn't go so far as to say that rape trials should reverse the "innocent until proven guilty" rule, I think that they should put the accused rapist under the tough grilling and microscopic examination of his personal life. Whether he's innocent or guilty, it would be far less traumatic for him than for a rape victim.

"Why is it impossible that this is one of those rare cases of a false accusation?"

I think EG nailed it with a previous comment. Quoting extensively:

"Let's play another round of "Which scenario is likely, and which scenario is so absurd that even unicorns don't believe in it." Here are your options:

a) These law-breaking boys gang-raped these two girls.

b) These two girls, sitting idly in the park, decided of their own volition to happily engage in sex with muggers, were flattered by the male attention, and then, for reasons unknown, decided to call the police and file rape charges, because women are just like that. Also, they're fatties."