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.