Comments on: Defense Attorney Argues That No Doesn’t Always Mean No http://thecurvature.com/2009/04/22/defense-attorney-argues-that-no-doesnt-always-mean-no/ Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:47:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Koli http://thecurvature.com/2009/04/22/defense-attorney-argues-that-no-doesnt-always-mean-no/#comment-12419 Koli Fri, 15 May 2009 21:53:57 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=4937#comment-12419 Ugh, that's awful. I also can't believe how many juries find these types of scenarios plausible -- that there are just tons of women out there who would honestly just get into a cab with any old taxi cab driver and start to have sex with him. Of course, that's what happens when porn has brainwashed practically everyone and people believe what they see women "enjoying" in porn above what actual women in their lives enjoy. Ugh. Ugh, that’s awful. I also can’t believe how many juries find these types of scenarios plausible — that there are just tons of women out there who would honestly just get into a cab with any old taxi cab driver and start to have sex with him. Of course, that’s what happens when porn has brainwashed practically everyone and people believe what they see women “enjoying” in porn above what actual women in their lives enjoy. Ugh.

]]> By: Anon Ymous http://thecurvature.com/2009/04/22/defense-attorney-argues-that-no-doesnt-always-mean-no/#comment-12043 Anon Ymous Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:07:00 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=4937#comment-12043 I think this is tapping into the commonly held belief that rape is a crime of intent. It's not true - the rapist doesn't have to mean to rape in order to have done it - but enough people in juries think that rape without intent is just bungled sex (and not a crime) that it's a ploy worth taking. In front of a judge alone? No way. I don't think anyone would walk away from this thinking the woman had actually consented. But to a jury? All the defence lawyer needs suggest is that it might be *possible* that the rapist didn't know he was raping. I mean, you don't want to lock up this *poor*, *innocent* man for something he didn't know was wrong, now, do you? [P.S. My partner, wanting to know what I was typing about, has ventured the opinion that trying to establish that the perp might have had "understandable" confusion is for sentance mitigation purposes. She thinks that if no one is arguing that the woman didn't say "no", then it's cut and dried, practically a directed "find this man guilty". I think she may be a little naive about the justice system for these kinds of cases... *sigh*] I think this is tapping into the commonly held belief that rape is a crime of intent. It’s not true – the rapist doesn’t have to mean to rape in order to have done it – but enough people in juries think that rape without intent is just bungled sex (and not a crime) that it’s a ploy worth taking.

In front of a judge alone? No way. I don’t think anyone would walk away from this thinking the woman had actually consented. But to a jury? All the defence lawyer needs suggest is that it might be *possible* that the rapist didn’t know he was raping. I mean, you don’t want to lock up this *poor*, *innocent* man for something he didn’t know was wrong, now, do you?

[P.S. My partner, wanting to know what I was typing about, has ventured the opinion that trying to establish that the perp might have had "understandable" confusion is for sentance mitigation purposes. She thinks that if no one is arguing that the woman didn't say "no", then it's cut and dried, practically a directed "find this man guilty". I think she may be a little naive about the justice system for these kinds of cases... *sigh*]

]]> By: links for 2009-04-27 « Embololalia http://thecurvature.com/2009/04/22/defense-attorney-argues-that-no-doesnt-always-mean-no/#comment-12022 links for 2009-04-27 « Embololalia Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:07:47 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=4937#comment-12022 [...] Defense Attorney Argues That No Doesn’t Always Mean No : The Curvature And no, misogynistic defense attorneys who use rape myths in court to defend rapists aren’t actually that stupid; the problem is, they’re really, really smart. Smart enough to make this bullshit work. So I thought about it some more. What could she be trying to gain (tags: law rapeapology sexualviolence courts) [...] [...] Defense Attorney Argues That No Doesn’t Always Mean No : The Curvature And no, misogynistic defense attorneys who use rape myths in court to defend rapists aren’t actually that stupid; the problem is, they’re really, really smart. Smart enough to make this bullshit work. So I thought about it some more. What could she be trying to gain (tags: law rapeapology sexualviolence courts) [...]

]]> By: abyss2hope http://thecurvature.com/2009/04/22/defense-attorney-argues-that-no-doesnt-always-mean-no/#comment-11951 abyss2hope Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:21:13 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=4937#comment-11951 This line of questioning is tapping into the common belief that rapists are not legally responsible for ensuring legal consent and can legally proceed without genuine consent simply because they assume that women who say no are joking or are trying to get sex without taking personal responsibility, etc. This line of questioning is tapping into the common belief that rapists are not legally responsible for ensuring legal consent and can legally proceed without genuine consent simply because they assume that women who say no are joking or are trying to get sex without taking personal responsibility, etc.

]]> By: Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2009-04-23 http://thecurvature.com/2009/04/22/defense-attorney-argues-that-no-doesnt-always-mean-no/#comment-11950 Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2009-04-23 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:32:42 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=4937#comment-11950 [...] Defense Attorney Argues That No Doesn’t Always Mean No : The Curvature "And even worse than that, I bet that the defense attorney expected the woman to be offended, upset, and flustered by her outrageous, misogynistic, insulting, accusatory, and downright triggering line of questioning. She would have expected her to nervously deny it, perhaps with a quaver in her voice, perhaps a little 'too' adamantly. How could most of us not? And she would have hoped that a jury would see her quavering voice not as upset and shock but as uncertainty, and a vigorous denial as an attempt to cover up a lie rather than valid self-defense." (tags: rape rapeculture news law misogyny consent) [...] [...] Defense Attorney Argues That No Doesn’t Always Mean No : The Curvature "And even worse than that, I bet that the defense attorney expected the woman to be offended, upset, and flustered by her outrageous, misogynistic, insulting, accusatory, and downright triggering line of questioning. She would have expected her to nervously deny it, perhaps with a quaver in her voice, perhaps a little 'too' adamantly. How could most of us not? And she would have hoped that a jury would see her quavering voice not as upset and shock but as uncertainty, and a vigorous denial as an attempt to cover up a lie rather than valid self-defense." (tags: rape rapeculture news law misogyny consent) [...]

]]> By: Feminist Avatar http://thecurvature.com/2009/04/22/defense-attorney-argues-that-no-doesnt-always-mean-no/#comment-11933 Feminist Avatar Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:48:28 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=4937#comment-11933 A defence attorney's aim in rape suits is to present an alternative story to the jury- one that sound's plausible enough to put doubt in their mind. Ideally, this should be put to the witness on the stand as yes or no questions. It doesn't really matter how they respond [ie yes or no] as the purpose is to tell the alternative story with minimum interruption to the story flow. It's a very effective technique and the best way for a witness to combat it is to answer in sentences- 'no, I did not consent' or better to see if they can repeat their version back 'no, he attacked me and I screamed and shouted.' Even this is not hugely effective if the lawyer has a good story- but ultimately that is what happens in court- you get two stories and the jury have to pick. This is also why it's a risky strategy to try as defence lawyer to present multiple versions of events. A defence attorney’s aim in rape suits is to present an alternative story to the jury- one that sound’s plausible enough to put doubt in their mind. Ideally, this should be put to the witness on the stand as yes or no questions. It doesn’t really matter how they respond [ie yes or no] as the purpose is to tell the alternative story with minimum interruption to the story flow. It’s a very effective technique and the best way for a witness to combat it is to answer in sentences- ‘no, I did not consent’ or better to see if they can repeat their version back ‘no, he attacked me and I screamed and shouted.’ Even this is not hugely effective if the lawyer has a good story- but ultimately that is what happens in court- you get two stories and the jury have to pick. This is also why it’s a risky strategy to try as defence lawyer to present multiple versions of events.

]]>