Wow. What an asshole. It sounds like someone should take naked pictures of him and post them on the Internet. Not that anyone would ever want to fuck such a big asshole.

Sometimes it takes something personal to get people to awaken to a single ounce of their humanity. I'm sorry that this has happened to his daughter (what a shitty thing), but I can only hope that out of this he will learn a valuable lesson and change for the better.

Or he could just walk away feeling as though his daughter was attacked unjustly when there are so many "sluts" out there who could have been attacked instead. But here's to hoping.

Is it too much to hope that he'll know that, should he be able to sue anyone who does (or will do) anything to his daughter, that the same defenses that he's used for years will be used to deny her justice?

If only the remorse he feels now for his behavior, ( considering that he would feel some remorse for his behavior) could wash away the uncontrollable damage his words have caused in the past.

How can people make such sexisrt, insensitive comments?

My first thought was, "Is this really the same guy?" But given the likelihood that there would be two lawyers named Allan Stokke in the same area, it must be.

I agree with you, Cara, and hope that he learns from this, but I'm not holding my breath.

When it happens to his daughter, it is a violation.

When something far worse happens to someone else's daughter, it's just a little something on the sweater that needs wiped off.

What a piece of shit!

I don't think this will change his mind about anything.

After all, women are slutty and are asking for it, except for his poor daughter (she doesn't deserve this though, no matter how big of a creep her dad is), and probably his wife (although that can always change),mother and other female relatives that haven't forgotten to send a christmas card.

Sometimes it takes something personal to get people to awaken to a single ounce of their humanity.

It'd be nice if that happened in this case, but even if it does, I have no sympathy for people like that. People who can't imagine what it's like to be in another person's shoes, and then all of a sudden THEIR shoes are another person's shoes and *poof!* all of a sudden that particular issue matters.

Maybe I've got a different take on this, but... if you're a lawyer, it is your job to defend your client, and that everyone is deserving of legal representation is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. My parents have both defended people who have murdered other people, and if I get killed, I hope no one says "hey, gosh, isn't that ironic...maybe they'll know better from now on."
Now, the rhetoric Stokke used is definitely gross, and I hope that's all you are responding do, not the fact that he took these cases.

That poor sweetheart. She sounds like an amazing athlete and good kid. I may be making a big jump here, but this section of the WaPo article stood out to me when I read it a 2nd time knowing her Pop's track record:

"Allan Stokke, a defense attorney, studied California's statutes so he would know if he saw or read anything about his daughter that went beyond distasteful to illegal.

"Even if none of it is illegal, it just all feels really demeaning," Allison Stokke said."

My guess is she's not getting tons of support from Dad when the microphones aren't on; probably more along the lines of 'Boys will be boys, honey, besides none of this is against the law so suck it up.'

What lizard23 said...the only thing we know about the world Stokke desires is that it includes the right to legal defense, which is fine by me.

the only thing we know about the world Stokke desires is that it includes the right to legal defense, which is fine by me.

Just so we're clear, you assert that being a defense lawyer gives one the license to say anything without ever having to answer for it, right?

if you're a lawyer, it is your job to defend your client

I could give a fuck. Find a way to refuse to dehumanize and re-victimize a girl who has already been violated beyond belief. Turn down the case. Get a new job. FIND A WAY. If you can't, you're scum.

(Poor Alison Stokke. Not only does she have to deal with an internet full of asshats, but she has that for a father.)

Yes, lizard23, an attorney's job is to represent a client charged with a criminal offense. It's an attorney's job to challenge the state's case and present a defense. Most defenses run along the lines of "I wasn't there," "It wasn't me", "It was an accident," "I was only defending myself," or "It wasn't rape, she consented."

But a defense is not to convince the jury (who, let us not forget, bears the blame here) that the victim "deserved" to be violated.

I find it highly unethical to defend your client by saying "The victim is a piece of shit and it's her fault my client did a bad thing."

There's a line, and this guy crossed it.

That's actually the kind of weird karmic coincidence I wouldn't believe existed if it wasn't happening in real life.

Except yeah, I don't know why the universe would make a man's daughter pay for his sins...except that karma does that sometimes.

Poor girl, stuck with a shitty dad.
And the job of the defense isn't necessarily to get their client off the hook at any cost, it's to ensure that the state & prosecution obey the law. Karma's a bitch.

It's definitely the rhetoric that makes a difference, lizard23. I work in a firm that does mostly (corporate) defense work and there's a huge premium placed on being a zealous advocate *within the bounds of ethics and personal conscience.* We make a point of not bringing in irrelevant smear tactics, because we believe that we should win on the merits. Our clients value that approach.

Everyone, including accused rapists and murderers, deserves a fair trial and a competent defense. But like scootermom said, there's a difference between making the prosecution prove that yoru client actually committed a crime versus using horrible misogynist rhetoric to convince a jury that the victim invited/deserved to be victimized. That's a distraction from the real issues at hand, not to mention a despicable rpactice generally.

He's a defense lawyer for chrissakes.

His job is not to find some sort of objective "truth." His job is to present the best possible case for his client. For a rape, that generally means presenting things as consensual.

This is an adversarial system, not a polite one. Lawyers aren't up against polite prosecutors, polite cops, polite accusers. And the penalty for failure is pretty big.

EVERYONE in the courtroom is doing their best to win. A rape prosecutor is trying to paint the accused as the scum of the earth, and the accuser as an innocent. In civil cases, the parties are trying to do everything possible to make each other look bad.

That said, I don't--and wouldn't--do rape defense, because I'm not personally interested in going there. Neither would I particularly enjoy defending Nazi's rights to free speech, or defending people who appear to have serially killed multiple victims.

But I think that vigorous defenses of those defendants are necessary. And his rhetoric is similarly necessary because it is part and parcel of a vigorous defense.

Sigh. I live in Orange County (Irvine, to be exact - the same city who's cop assaulted the stripper) and, needless to say, I followed both that case and the Greg Haidl (date rape video) case very closely. I read about Allison Stokke's horrible ordeal a week or so ago, and I KNEW that last name sounded familiar. Crap, now I know why. Her dad is a certified piece of shit.

People like him are why I'm moving to New York in a week.

Sandinista-I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were accused of a crime. A zealous defense in the role of a defense attorney.

I think that it is indeed a good thing that this father can now see firsthand the flip side of the arguements he has used in his job, but I cannot fault him for fighting for his clients, no matter how scummy they are.

Would you feel the same way if it was a female defense attorney saying the same things this guy did?

Seriously, it turns my stomach to say this, especially in the second case because the defendants were so clearly guilty, but this is what zealous defense means. It doesn't mean you stop countering the prosecution because they make a solid argument - that's the one you try to poke holes in. It's up to the prosecution to make their case, it's up to the defense to shatter the defense's case within the bounds of the law. It's not just to patrol the prosecution and make sure they obey the rules, it's to use whatever legal leverage you have to defend your client. The fact that he didn't allow the kids to take the stand pretty much indicates that he knew they would perjure themselves or admit guilt if they did, which at least indicates that he was ethical in his defense.

This whole Allison Stokes incident is part and parcel of living in the age of the internet. The leers are moving from the street to the discussion boards(alright, they are still on the street as well, but now they have another venue).

But do we want to start limiting speech, no matter how disqusting, on the net? Who will be the arbiter? Do you want the same governemnt that wants to limit reporductive rights deciding on what can and can't be done online?

Karma is a wonderful thing, and it seems like this young woman's father just got a big fat dose of it. But privacy is a lie we convince ourselves of in this country. Pictures will be taken of all of us with or without our permission, and the way those pictures are viewed and discussed are out of our control.

lordie, my spelling is horrible...my apologies

Karma is a wonderful thing, and it seems like this young woman's father just got a big fat dose of it.

Karma doesn't exist. If it did, and if this were karma, "this young woman's father" didn't get any of it. Him getting karmic payback would involve him being gang-raped and then publicly mocked.

It is his daughter who is being harrassed. Girls are not appendages of their fathers. They are separate human beings in their own right.

Harrassment isn't protected speech in real life; why should it be protected on the internet?

"She was unconscious so she wasn't really hurt" and "her mental anguish has nothing to do with the rape" aren't "vigorous defenses"; they're unethical bullshit. Really, that's your defense? "She was unconscious so it couldn't really have hurt"? Pathetic.

For everyone who has pointed out that a vigorous defense is an important part of our judicial system, I wholeheartedly agree. And I don't want the government to limit speech. But it's still important to recognize how incredibly offensive and disgusting this guy's comments were -- whether or not they were made because of his job.

Also, on a technical note, sorry for all the double-posts and 500 Server Errors. Not sure why things are running slow today. If you get a 500 Server Error after posting a comment, just be patient and it will show up. You usually don't need to re-post.

I think that most of the commenters who are defending Mr. Stokke must not have followed either of those cases very closely. In both cases, he's perpetuated the idea that rape victims "ask for it" or deserve to be raped. That's not an appropriate defense, and it's that sort of sick smear tactic that's poisoning our judicial system.

The karma I was referring to, EG, was in regards to the statements that he made. His mysoginistic (sp) comments directed at other women were returned when the same type of comments were made about his daughter.

Yes, his daughter is her own being. Thank you very much for pointing out the obvious.

But the original story Ann posted was about the comments Al Stokes made. That was the basis for my original comment.

Thank you as well for your total dismissal of the concept of karma. Nothing like ignoring or belittling another person's belief system if it gets in the way of your own....I mean what the hell do millions of hindus know? Maybe in the next life you'll return as someone that reads the whole post before they comment on it or it's responses.

When you say "In other words, it's his daughter, and of course he's doing all he can to ensure she's safe...."
But then yourepeat at the end of the paragraph
"his wife, his sister, his mother, his daughter -- could be a victim of that violence."
Words are so tricky, and rhetoric gets slippery if we lose our consistency. At the beginning of the paragraph you seem to be referencing the oft spoken rhetorical ploy that men somehow feel entitled to own women, and in other places on the blog you show a great disdain for men feeling as if someone is 'theirs', So which "his" is it?
I mean, are we to just hate men always when we don't need them or have no imminent use for them, but allow them to 'own' us when we need protection?
As a lawyer, he must give whatever zealous defense his client requires.
AND, I highly doubt he is a shitty dad at all, and would wager that his daughter loves him dearly. I mean: does a shitty dad raise a pole vaulter?

Am I the only one who wonders if someone didn't start that thing with his daughter on purpose to show him what an asshole he is?

Sadly, it reminds me of Islamic fundamenalist countries where the women always suffer the punishment for crimes committed by men.

I think that, while Mr. Stokke may not have violated any of the existing ethical rules, he is not conducting himself in a way that promotes the integrity of the profession. I'm allowed to criticize his tactics as misogynistic and inappropriate courtroom conduct. He can zealously defend his clients without maligning women in general or the victims specifically. Sure, he can and should try to prove that they are lying, or mistaken about the identity of their attackers. But that's different from bringing in arguments about the (lack of) value of a woman's sexual agency based on her profession, or the degree to which an unconscious woman felt the physical pain of being sexually assaulted. I hate that many people think that "zealous representation" is a free pass or even a requirement to let the ends justify the means--it isn't.

Although it is a very odd coincidence that his daughter is now being exploited, I don't know how much it will change his mind or really how this is related, karmically or otherwise. I only hope he is supportive of her and that she hasn't internalized his misogyny to the point where she cannot identify and cope with the violation of her privacy and personhood.

I'm an atheist, efbg. I see no reason to believe that karma exists, and I would respond with the same flat denial if someone posted here claiming that this was an example of a wrathful Yahweh visiting the sins of the father upon the child. I get sick of people who most assuredly are not practicing Hindus (of course, I can't know this about anyone here, but I do know it for a fact about the people I know in real life) throwing around the term "karma" casually to mean "what goes around comes around"/"the bad guys get theirs in the end." I've seen nothing to convince me of either proposition, and I've seen even less to convince me that on the occasions that they do occur, there's some scheme of cosmic justice at work. Unfortunately.

Now, if one believes, as I do, that Allison Stokke is her own person, the harrassment directed at her is not "karmic" payback, because as far as we know, she's done nothing wrong. (As Ann pointed out.) So even if karma did exist, I don't see how it would apply to this situation.

It might apply if someone were saying nasty things about her father.

"The karma I was referring to, EG, was in regards to the statements that he made. His mysoginistic (sp) comments directed at other women were returned when the same type of comments were made about his daughter."

Nah, that's still doesn't sound karmic to me. It would be karmic if he got raped and the defense attorney of whomever raped him used "he asked for it" and "it didn't hurt him" arguments.

"Thank you as well for your total dismissal of the concept of karma. Nothing like ignoring or belittling another person's belief system if it gets in the way of your own..."

So now EG's an anti-Hindu bigot if she doesn't believe everything anyone else says about karma? What next, do we have to agree with everything anyone else says the Qu'ran and hadiths say about women if we don't want to be anti-Muslim bigots?

That's actually the kind of weird karmic coincidence I wouldn't believe existed if it wasn't happening in real life.

Except yeah, I don't know why the universe would make a man's daughter pay for his sins...except that karma does that sometimes.

Sounds Christian to me. You are not punished because you are sinful; rather, God tests his people and hopes to, through their suffering, make them more Christ-like. God can also use the same event for several purposes - for example, to awaken Mr. Stokkes to the depth of his vileness, to make sexist jerks see the effects of their supposedly victimless actions, and, perhaps, test a young woman.

I'm an atheist, so it would be nice if an actual Christian would comment.

I agree with Legally Blondeez. There is a right to counsel (yay - can we imagine a world without that?) and a right to a competent defense, but there are some defenses which simply should not be allowed in the courtroom. I would love it if evidentiary rules would keep out claims like, "She's a stripper, so she wanted it," unless the person could link strippers with wanting it (without payment - which, frankly, is absurd, because we don't expect that people will use their job skills when pulled over for speeding).

Sandinista-I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were accused of a crime. A zealous defense in the role of a defense attorney.

In the course of my admittedly brief and minor experience with being accused of a crime [that I didn't commit], I successfully maintained my principles. I'd like to think that I'd fire my defense attorney before I allowed him to sink so low on my behalf. However, not being in the habit of having "consensual sex" with unconscious minors, I somehow can't imagine myself in this predicament.

but I cannot fault him for fighting for his clients, no matter how scummy they are.

Yea, well, I can. Does the legal system need defense lawyers? Yes. Does that justify anything and everything a defense lawyer says? No. And does the fact that you're conducting a "rigorous defense" mean you are no longer responsible for your words? Hell no.

Would you feel the same way if it was a female defense attorney saying the same things this guy did?

Fuck yes, I would.
___

Stokke and his ilk are absolutely critical to the maintenance of rape culture. This is precisely the shit that perpetuates it all. This is victim-blaming at it's most absurd, most unethical, most public and most shameful. I don't care that he's a defense attorney or a librarian or a marine biologist. There IS NO EXCUSE for the things he says. If he can't be an effective lawyer without being a bad person, he should have made a different career choice. He could be doing any number of other things that don't allegedly require him to bolster misogyny. He made a choice when he became a lawyer and he makes another every time he takes a case and yet another every time he opens his mouth.

It also bears stating that he's hot shit; he defended the sheriff's son. Obviously, he is not alone, but he is wholly complicit in setting the tone for this type of trial. He could do it differently, but he doesn't. Another shitty, unforgivable choice.
___

AND, I highly doubt he is a shitty dad at all, and would wager that his daughter loves him dearly.

Misogynyists don't make good parents, particularly not to women. I see no reason to "wager" one way or another as to whether she loves him, but I feel the need to point out that many of us love family members in spite of some damned glaring flaws.

I mean: does a shitty dad raise a pole vaulter?

I'm sorry, what? How are her extroardinary athletic accomplishments reflections of her father's parenting skills? What kind of, pardon me, regressive, patriarchal bullshit is that?

skillful pole-vaulting abilities = excellent upbringing.

It's logically INFALLIBLE.

and while we're at it, need for legal defense = no need for human decency.

I'm learning so much today.

Not to stir the pot too much (sometimes I can't help myself) but karma in the Hindu sense (and also the Bhuddist sense) doesn't take effect until one's next lifetime.

So, if Stokke is going to "get his" for his actions in this lifetime, we're going to be waiting a while to see how it turns out.

Also, what Cara said.

Notice, ladies, that equityforbothgenders [MRA], Sailorman, et. al. helpfully illustrate a standard technique of patriarchy: resort to an allegedly neutral, higher principle to defend the most egregious misogyny.

It's zealous advocacy! It's free speech! You're not against free speech, are you?? they ask, rhetorically.

Of course, as legallyblondeez has so rightly pointed out, zealous advocacy need not permit, and certainly doesn't require, the likes of Allan Stokke. [And free speech is a red herring.] Stokke's "representation" relies on inflaming misogynist prejudices in order to create a pretext for acquittal by jury members (men and women) tacitly committed to maintaining the patriarchal status quo: sexual assault is nominally prohibited but condoned and even encouraged in practice.

Of course, such prejudices can never be marshalled against any other crime victims. Thus, the purportedly neutral principle of zealous advocacy* is in fact a tool of male domination. Male misogynist pseudo-liberals can happily vaunt it without any danger of suffering its consequences.

It's a neat trick, really. The menz get to position themselves as heroes, defenders of the moral high ground, champions of truth, justice, and the American way. In fact, they defend no meaningful principle except men's de facto right to use women like toilets.

*I'm not talking about actual zealous advocacy in the sense of capable, vigorous legal representation, of course; I'm talking about the asshat, no-holds-barred-slash-and-burn-victory-at-any-cost version that no lawyer with any actual regard for justice would touch with a ten-foot pole.

Here's what I think. This isn't "karma."

This is a guy who has spent his professional life perpetuating the notion that women cause and deserve to be victims of sexual violence, and that their bodies are public property, to be used for male titillation. This is just a result of that society. It just came back to bite him in the ass. He helped support a society that is now hurting someone he loves.

It's not really karma. It's the result of not thinking about the way your actions affect the world, and by extension, your own family. It's the result of not realizing that his daughter and wife and mother and the girls next door and all the other women in the world are affected by this problematic, sexist notion that women's bodies belong to men.

I must say, I particularly enjoyed timssopomo's iteration of the trope I describe above: "Really, it turns my stomach to say this, but rape-with-impunity followed by legally-sanctioned revictimization is necessary to a free society. I'm so sorry, but there's no other conceivable way to have a democracy. It's just the price that we - and by we I mean you - have to pay. So regrettable. Can I have my NiceGuy(tm) cookie now?"

Kattyben,

It's not a "patriarchal rape defense" issue for me, it's a general "criminal defense" issue, that doesn't have any exceptions for rape (or anything else, for that matter.)

I'm, and others here (I suspect) are not defending, as you so quaintly put it, "men's de facto right to use women like toilets." I am advocating against any erosion of what I consider to be one of our most important Constitutional protections. I do--and have--done the same thing for defendants of all sexes and who have been accused of all sorts of crimes. Sorry, but that is a principle. It benefits the accused in rape crimes... but it also benefits the accused in situations where a woman is accused of killing her abuser. And so on.