Two links unite
June 4, 2007 8:26 PM Subscribe
As seen on metafilter, the story of a woman exploited. Later the story of the story of another woman exploited. The interesting thing is that in the first case, Allen Stoke was acting as defense counsel for the exploiter. In the next, his own daughter was the victim.
You're telling me that defendants have the right to have their version of the story told in court? And juries get to decide which version they believe?
Thanks for this important insight.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:55 PM on June 4, 2007
Thanks for this important insight.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:55 PM on June 4, 2007
You're telling me that defendants have the right to have their version of the story told in court?
I believe the not so covert message here is that sometimes even lawyers get to feel the impact of karma, laughing in their face.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:17 PM on June 4, 2007
I believe the not so covert message here is that sometimes even lawyers get to feel the impact of karma, laughing in their face.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:17 PM on June 4, 2007
The sad thing is, Allen Stokke probably sees no irony whatsoever in the fact that he is now protesting the sexualization of his daughter against her will, when in the past, in the courtroom, he insisted that there was no way an exotic dancer could have been forced to give a handjob against her will. That is because he clearly lives in a world where there are two kinds of women: "good girls" like his daughter who do not deserve unwanted sexual attention, and "slutty women" for whom there is no such thing as unwanted sexual attention.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 9:32 PM on June 4, 2007 [9 favorites]
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 9:32 PM on June 4, 2007 [9 favorites]
I am really confused as to what I should be feeling versus what the hell is the emotion I am feeling about these details.
Modern life is so exasperating for the peanut gallery.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 9:40 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Modern life is so exasperating for the peanut gallery.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 9:40 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
That is because he clearly lives in a world where there are two kinds of women: "good girls" like his daughter who do not deserve unwanted sexual attention, and "slutty women" for whom there is no such thing as unwanted sexual attention.
No, it's because he's a defense attorney, and he's not paid to voice is personal views about anything at all in the courtroom.
We have an adversarial criminal justice system, and that means that when the vast machinery of the state is arrayed against you, you're allowed to have one guy try to divert that ax away from your neck any way he can. Yeah, it gets ugly, but that's our system.
If you're ever in trouble, if you ever have a hungry prosecutor salivating for your ass, go right ahead and hire a lawyer who will play gentle. It's your right to get railroaded, I guess.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:47 PM on June 4, 2007 [12 favorites]
No, it's because he's a defense attorney, and he's not paid to voice is personal views about anything at all in the courtroom.
We have an adversarial criminal justice system, and that means that when the vast machinery of the state is arrayed against you, you're allowed to have one guy try to divert that ax away from your neck any way he can. Yeah, it gets ugly, but that's our system.
If you're ever in trouble, if you ever have a hungry prosecutor salivating for your ass, go right ahead and hire a lawyer who will play gentle. It's your right to get railroaded, I guess.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:47 PM on June 4, 2007 [12 favorites]
No matter who's side you're on, this post is faptacular.
posted by wfrgms at 9:51 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by wfrgms at 9:51 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
At least I don't feel so bad about ejaculating on that photo.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:15 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:15 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wasn't this a deleted post a little while ago? My, how quickly things change between commercial breaks!
posted by infinitywaltz at 10:17 PM on June 4, 2007
posted by infinitywaltz at 10:17 PM on June 4, 2007
Astro Zombie writes 'At least I don't feel so bad about ejaculating on that photo.'
That photo was a slut. Although it pretended to be just a sports photograph, I found it just after I'd been browsing a porno site, so it was obviously loitering in that area, just waiting for a man like me to come along. Then, after a quick glance, it told me that it was a dirty .gif who liked a snort of cocaine and was really turned on by the sort of man who played a policeman on the internet, and that it was happy for me to ejaculate on it.
OK, so it might not have said these things aloud, but I could tell that's what she was thinking as I looked at her. And she didn't resist. Wouldn't a photo that objected to being covered in my jism mouth strenuous objections as it saw my pants coming off?
I rest my case.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:43 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
That photo was a slut. Although it pretended to be just a sports photograph, I found it just after I'd been browsing a porno site, so it was obviously loitering in that area, just waiting for a man like me to come along. Then, after a quick glance, it told me that it was a dirty .gif who liked a snort of cocaine and was really turned on by the sort of man who played a policeman on the internet, and that it was happy for me to ejaculate on it.
OK, so it might not have said these things aloud, but I could tell that's what she was thinking as I looked at her. And she didn't resist. Wouldn't a photo that objected to being covered in my jism mouth strenuous objections as it saw my pants coming off?
I rest my case.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:43 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
The man who led the Haidl jury to its 2005 guilty verdict has also seen the video, and he believes Briseño should reject defense lawyer Al Stokke’s plea for leniency.posted by orthogonality at 10:45 PM on June 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
“Probation would not be appropriate because of the severity of the crime,” Robbie Ruiz, a 28-year-old mortgage banker, told the Weekly. “I’m not saying it should be a throw-away-the-key deal, but it should be a fair conclusion. Nobody drove the girl to the party. Nobody made her drink. But those guys violated her when she was out. She is a human being, and they treated her like she wasn’t. You really want to find a shower after you watch that video the first time. It’s disgusting.”
* * *
Lost in the buildup to the sentencing hearing is Jane Doe, the name prosecutors gave the victim, who was 16 years old at the time of the crime. She was thrust suddenly into the bright lights of the national media, as well as the intrigue of bitter defendants and some cops who openly sympathized with the Haidls. For example, Sheriff Mike Carona used his second in command in a bold-faced but ultimately vain attempt to influence the Newport Beach police investigation. Seeking dirt on the victim, Greg’s mother, Gail, hired people to post fliers in Doe’s neighborhood. Later, the defense hired a professional publicist and several teams of private detectives to attack her and her family. She was tracked like a dog and subject to countless smears. She found temporary relief in methamphetamines, a drug she says she’s been working hard to overcome in recent months.
It’s hardly surprising her life spiraled out of control. One Haidl dick—John Warren, a former ranking FBI agent in Santa Ana—disclosed Doe’s identity to students at the high school she had transferred to. Most of her friends abandoned her, shamelessly siding with Haidl, the son of a man reportedly worth more than $40 million. The defense illegally leaked her private medical records to the media, a move that Los Angeles Times columnist Dana Parsons rewarded by downplaying the crime and belittling District Attorney Tony Rackauckas for filing felony charges. On the witness stand, Doe was called “a slut” and “a liar” by lead defense lawyer Joe Cavallo. She was forced to stare at enlarged pictures of her own vagina during torturous cross examinations. The defendants floated the idea that she had raped them. In front of the jury, defense lawyer Peter Morreale asked her if she liked to swallow after oral sex. At another point, defense lawyers argued that she faked unconsciousness to shoot a necrophilia-based sex video. They claimed she wanted to launch a porn career and the defendants were merely obliging her wishes.
“Faking?” asked jury foreman Ruiz. “No way. You can see on the video that she was only conscious for the first couple of minutes. After that, they were propping her up. Whatever they gave her knocked her out in my opinion. Even before they let go of her and her head hit the couch, it was obvious the line had been crossed. She did not put herself in those positions on the pool table.”
Although there were heated moments during jury deliberations, Ruiz is proud his panel of “honest, decent people” could render a verdict after a deadlock in the first trial. “Man, I don’t know what those people were seeing,” he said of jurors in the first trial. “The tape proved they were guilty. If you show that video on the news, everybody’s view would be that these guys should hang. People would go crazy. You know what I mean? It was primal. It looked like savages having their way with a piece of meat.”
That is because he clearly lives in a world where there are two kinds of women: "good girls" like his daughter who do not deserve unwanted sexual attention, and "slutty women" for whom there is no such thing as unwanted sexual attention.
I suspect he lives (hardly alone) in a world where all women are sluts.
posted by three blind mice at 10:47 PM on June 4, 2007
I suspect he lives (hardly alone) in a world where all women are sluts.
posted by three blind mice at 10:47 PM on June 4, 2007
This is the most stupid post ever.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:58 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by mr_roboto at 10:58 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Stupid awesome, you mean.
posted by infinitywaltz at 11:05 PM on June 4, 2007
posted by infinitywaltz at 11:05 PM on June 4, 2007
You're very welcome.
posted by infinitywaltz at 11:07 PM on June 4, 2007
posted by infinitywaltz at 11:07 PM on June 4, 2007
The last post on this girl caused a run on popcorn. I guess I'll just pull up a chair and eat sunflower seeds. Carry on.
posted by redteam at 11:15 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by redteam at 11:15 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
What if I don't think that what his daughter has gone through is unusual or degrading or bad, and what if I think that defense attorneys act in their clients' best interests instead of arguing their personal principles? What am I supposed to feel here?
posted by dhartung at 11:18 PM on June 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by dhartung at 11:18 PM on June 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
Orange county is fucking insane.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:19 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:19 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
No, it's because he's a defense attorney, and he's not paid to voice is personal views about anything at all in the courtroom.
We have an adversarial criminal justice system, and that means that when the vast machinery of the state is arrayed against you, you're allowed to have one guy try to divert that ax away from your neck any way he can. Yeah, it gets ugly, but that's our system.
And, as far as I know, America - like Australia - has a system in which any attorney who feels the slightest moral discomfort in representing a particular client is entitled to step aside from the brief without any prejudice being inferred against the client's case.
Al Stokke presumably had the choice not to defend these alleged creeps. The fact that he chose not to stand aside, even with a youngish daughter of his own, suggests that he is a man of either a remarkable lack of compassion, or alse a man armed with a massively strong belief in the right of every defendant to a fair trial.
You can take your pick.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:20 PM on June 4, 2007
We have an adversarial criminal justice system, and that means that when the vast machinery of the state is arrayed against you, you're allowed to have one guy try to divert that ax away from your neck any way he can. Yeah, it gets ugly, but that's our system.
And, as far as I know, America - like Australia - has a system in which any attorney who feels the slightest moral discomfort in representing a particular client is entitled to step aside from the brief without any prejudice being inferred against the client's case.
Al Stokke presumably had the choice not to defend these alleged creeps. The fact that he chose not to stand aside, even with a youngish daughter of his own, suggests that he is a man of either a remarkable lack of compassion, or alse a man armed with a massively strong belief in the right of every defendant to a fair trial.
You can take your pick.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:20 PM on June 4, 2007
The fact that he chose not to stand aside, even with a youngish daughter of his own, suggests that he is a man of either a remarkable lack of compassion, or alse a man armed with a massively strong belief in the right of every defendant to a fair trial.
You're making a couple of huge errors. First, you're evaluating the case based on what you read in the news after it was over. If you think you received a balanced account of how the situation would've appeared when the defendant first approached Stokke, you're amazingly naive.
Second, a defense attorney in the US actually can't necessarily walk out in the middle of the trial just because their client starts to look guilty.
Third, everyone does deserve a fair trial, and the fact that you would condemn a lawyer for mounting a vigorous defense of a sleazy person just boggles my mind. How on earth is justice supposed to happen, exactly? If the defendant is allegedly a creep, do you think we even need a trial? What's the damn point, if no decent person would defend an alleged creep?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:30 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
You're making a couple of huge errors. First, you're evaluating the case based on what you read in the news after it was over. If you think you received a balanced account of how the situation would've appeared when the defendant first approached Stokke, you're amazingly naive.
Second, a defense attorney in the US actually can't necessarily walk out in the middle of the trial just because their client starts to look guilty.
Third, everyone does deserve a fair trial, and the fact that you would condemn a lawyer for mounting a vigorous defense of a sleazy person just boggles my mind. How on earth is justice supposed to happen, exactly? If the defendant is allegedly a creep, do you think we even need a trial? What's the damn point, if no decent person would defend an alleged creep?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:30 PM on June 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
If you think you received a balanced account of how the situation would've appeared when the defendant first approached Stokke, you're amazingly naive.
Stokke: "Ok, so what are you charged with?"
Policeman: "Aggravated sexual assault of a motorist"
Fratboy: "Gang-rape of a minor"
Those kinds of situations might be the kinds of things that a compassionate & concerned father might want to decline, just in case they *do* threaten his morals, which is a not insignificant possibility.
a defense attorney in the US actually can't necessarily walk out in the middle of the trial just because their client starts to look guilty.
Can't they? Are you a lawyer (just asking)? And who said anything about the middle? See the point above.
If the defendant is allegedly a creep, do you think we even need a trial? What's the damn point, if no decent person would defend an alleged creep?
Don't worry, there are plenty of non-decent people who would defend anybody. There are probably also plenty for whom a job is just a job, and if it happens to be putting the best possible face on a gang-rapist or police officer abusing his position, then, well, another day, another dollar...
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:46 PM on June 4, 2007
Stokke: "Ok, so what are you charged with?"
Policeman: "Aggravated sexual assault of a motorist"
Fratboy: "Gang-rape of a minor"
Those kinds of situations might be the kinds of things that a compassionate & concerned father might want to decline, just in case they *do* threaten his morals, which is a not insignificant possibility.
a defense attorney in the US actually can't necessarily walk out in the middle of the trial just because their client starts to look guilty.
Can't they? Are you a lawyer (just asking)? And who said anything about the middle? See the point above.
If the defendant is allegedly a creep, do you think we even need a trial? What's the damn point, if no decent person would defend an alleged creep?
Don't worry, there are plenty of non-decent people who would defend anybody. There are probably also plenty for whom a job is just a job, and if it happens to be putting the best possible face on a gang-rapist or police officer abusing his position, then, well, another day, another dollar...
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:46 PM on June 4, 2007
liquorice: I don't disagree with your or MPDSEA, and on another day I'd be just as likely to be arguing on your side - it's the lawyerly instinct in me, you see.
I guess I'm swayed partially against Mr Stokke because of the faint stench of hypocrisy. I mean, why isn't he vigorously defending the right of people to circulate pictures of his daughter & discuss her at length? The criminal justice system is empowered to take action against anybody who actually transgresses the law, isn't it?
As for "creating a fair and just legal system" - you can do that in any number of fields, in any variety of cases, no? Here, he has stepped up to the plate to defend people accused of sexual assaults, which somewhat diminishes his standing when he cries foul over how his daughter has been treated.
For the record, I have enormous respect for a number of famous Queens' Counsels here, who "defend the indefensible" (eg serial backpacker killer Ivan Milat, or Martin Bryant, who committed our worst ever mass shooting). I agree that we need people to represent even the apparently sickest, most twisted defendants, but I still wonder...why him? Any number of lawyers without children could have done it. It still speaks to me somewhat of a lack of compassion.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:13 AM on June 5, 2007
I guess I'm swayed partially against Mr Stokke because of the faint stench of hypocrisy. I mean, why isn't he vigorously defending the right of people to circulate pictures of his daughter & discuss her at length? The criminal justice system is empowered to take action against anybody who actually transgresses the law, isn't it?
As for "creating a fair and just legal system" - you can do that in any number of fields, in any variety of cases, no? Here, he has stepped up to the plate to defend people accused of sexual assaults, which somewhat diminishes his standing when he cries foul over how his daughter has been treated.
For the record, I have enormous respect for a number of famous Queens' Counsels here, who "defend the indefensible" (eg serial backpacker killer Ivan Milat, or Martin Bryant, who committed our worst ever mass shooting). I agree that we need people to represent even the apparently sickest, most twisted defendants, but I still wonder...why him? Any number of lawyers without children could have done it. It still speaks to me somewhat of a lack of compassion.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:13 AM on June 5, 2007
so basically, if her daddy is a lawyer who defends rapists and perverts she can just forget about being treated with dignity as a woman because she asked for it, right?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:32 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:32 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm not a lawyer, but I used to work in a district attorney's office.
I suppose I just don't see what compassion has to do with it. There's nothing compassionate about going easy on the state's case just because the alleged victim is sympathetic and the alleged offender is a creep. That's just crazy and dangerous.
There's no hypocrisy in trying to protect his own daughter, either. He never argued that innocent women (other than his daughter) deserve to be sexually assaulted. He argued that the state had failed to prove its case in this particular prosecution, that the state had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this woman really was a victim. As it turns out, the members of the jury disagreed, as they so often do, and we as a society were able to collectively know that justice had been done--the state had proven its case over a vigorous and competent defense.
Defending someone accused of a crime in no way condones the crime. One can perfectly consistently think both that women should be protected from sexual assault and men accused of sexual assault should be given the opportunity to challenge the state's case.
If you feel a job should be done, then you shouldn't feel moral qualms about doing it yourself. This doesn't mean you necessarily have to actually do it, but it's hypocritical to think a job is essential but that the people who do it are morally suspect.
Now, I'm not saying that Stokke is any sort of hero. He probably does his job for much the same reason anyone else does their job. All I'm arguing is that his job can be perfectly respectable, even if it involves defending some allegedly (and often actually) very scummy people.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:41 AM on June 5, 2007 [4 favorites]
I suppose I just don't see what compassion has to do with it. There's nothing compassionate about going easy on the state's case just because the alleged victim is sympathetic and the alleged offender is a creep. That's just crazy and dangerous.
There's no hypocrisy in trying to protect his own daughter, either. He never argued that innocent women (other than his daughter) deserve to be sexually assaulted. He argued that the state had failed to prove its case in this particular prosecution, that the state had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this woman really was a victim. As it turns out, the members of the jury disagreed, as they so often do, and we as a society were able to collectively know that justice had been done--the state had proven its case over a vigorous and competent defense.
Defending someone accused of a crime in no way condones the crime. One can perfectly consistently think both that women should be protected from sexual assault and men accused of sexual assault should be given the opportunity to challenge the state's case.
If you feel a job should be done, then you shouldn't feel moral qualms about doing it yourself. This doesn't mean you necessarily have to actually do it, but it's hypocritical to think a job is essential but that the people who do it are morally suspect.
Now, I'm not saying that Stokke is any sort of hero. He probably does his job for much the same reason anyone else does their job. All I'm arguing is that his job can be perfectly respectable, even if it involves defending some allegedly (and often actually) very scummy people.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:41 AM on June 5, 2007 [4 favorites]
This is just my opinion, but you're pretty much damned from the word go if you practice criminal law -- and that goes for prosecutors (plea bargaining) as well as defence counsel.
I don't believe that lawyers and defences are completely interchangeable. In fact, I know they are not. Two lawyers wouldn't argue the same case the same way and that's one thing I like about it. At the same time, however, that I would defend a thief does not mean that I think it's ok to be stolen from, or waive my right to justice if it happens to me or my family. That goes for any other crime.
A mature response from MeFites in this thread. I'm impressed.
a defense attorney in the US actually can't necessarily walk out in the middle of the trial just because their client starts to look guilty.
Can't they? Are you a lawyer (just asking)?
That's a standard bar exam question in Canada. You can drop a case for a very limited set of reasons, and only when it does not unduly compromise the defendant's case. Typical examples are having a completely uncooperative defendant, complete unwillingness to pay legal bills, and so on. Drop the case because you decide he's a "creep"? No. Drop the case because you determine that he is guilty? No. By the same token, though, you are permitted (or viewed another way, obligated to use) certain leeway when such facts become apparent. For example, in both provinces where I have direct experience (and very, very likely all others in Canada), if I have information that my client is guilty, I cannot put forward a defence that suggests otherwise. So let's say that I found out that he really did kill John Doe at midnight on Parliament Hill. I can't argue alternate alibi, as if my client weren't there. I can of course argue mitigating circumstances, lack of premeditation, or anything else to affect sentence and applicability of certain charges.
Of course, saying that you "can't" do something means you may be subject to disciplinary action if a complaint is made and substantiated. (and these can be quite serious)
Crown counsel are under far more restrictive conditions than that.
Not sure about your various states, though.
posted by dreamsign at 1:22 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't believe that lawyers and defences are completely interchangeable. In fact, I know they are not. Two lawyers wouldn't argue the same case the same way and that's one thing I like about it. At the same time, however, that I would defend a thief does not mean that I think it's ok to be stolen from, or waive my right to justice if it happens to me or my family. That goes for any other crime.
A mature response from MeFites in this thread. I'm impressed.
a defense attorney in the US actually can't necessarily walk out in the middle of the trial just because their client starts to look guilty.
Can't they? Are you a lawyer (just asking)?
That's a standard bar exam question in Canada. You can drop a case for a very limited set of reasons, and only when it does not unduly compromise the defendant's case. Typical examples are having a completely uncooperative defendant, complete unwillingness to pay legal bills, and so on. Drop the case because you decide he's a "creep"? No. Drop the case because you determine that he is guilty? No. By the same token, though, you are permitted (or viewed another way, obligated to use) certain leeway when such facts become apparent. For example, in both provinces where I have direct experience (and very, very likely all others in Canada), if I have information that my client is guilty, I cannot put forward a defence that suggests otherwise. So let's say that I found out that he really did kill John Doe at midnight on Parliament Hill. I can't argue alternate alibi, as if my client weren't there. I can of course argue mitigating circumstances, lack of premeditation, or anything else to affect sentence and applicability of certain charges.
Of course, saying that you "can't" do something means you may be subject to disciplinary action if a complaint is made and substantiated. (and these can be quite serious)
Crown counsel are under far more restrictive conditions than that.
Not sure about your various states, though.
posted by dreamsign at 1:22 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
This was already covered in the Stokke thread, so I'm flagging this post as double. It's like the Virginia Tech posts, we don't need six simultaneous posts on the same news story when updates can be added as comments in the original, still active thread.
We have an adversarial criminal justice system. . . Yeah, it gets ugly, but that's our system.
This is not reasonable.
Mr. Stokke can be held accountable for what kinds of arguments and prejudices he chooses to use in others defense in a court of law.
If I have to defend a man in court who murdered a Jew, I can be held morally accountable for arguing that it's OK because Jews are trying to take over the world and murder gentile babies - "In a way this was self-defense; maybe this man is even a HERO". I can make this argument, but that doesn't make it right.
The issue isn't who he is defending, but how he is choosing to do it. Lawyers don't have magical immunity from my judgment - there are ethical ways to defend people and unethical ways. Stokke is a vile, misogynist, scumbag lawyer.
posted by dgaicun at 2:00 AM on June 5, 2007
We have an adversarial criminal justice system. . . Yeah, it gets ugly, but that's our system.
This is not reasonable.
Mr. Stokke can be held accountable for what kinds of arguments and prejudices he chooses to use in others defense in a court of law.
If I have to defend a man in court who murdered a Jew, I can be held morally accountable for arguing that it's OK because Jews are trying to take over the world and murder gentile babies - "In a way this was self-defense; maybe this man is even a HERO". I can make this argument, but that doesn't make it right.
The issue isn't who he is defending, but how he is choosing to do it. Lawyers don't have magical immunity from my judgment - there are ethical ways to defend people and unethical ways. Stokke is a vile, misogynist, scumbag lawyer.
posted by dgaicun at 2:00 AM on June 5, 2007
If I have to defend a man in court who murdered a Jew, I can be held morally accountable for arguing that it's OK because Jews are trying to take over the world and murder gentile babies - "In a way this was self-defense; maybe this man is even a HERO". I can make this argument, but that doesn't make it right.
What on earth? I don't even know how to respond to this. Instead making a bizarre analogy, why don't you just say whatever it is you're trying to say?
Do you think Stokke argued in court that sexually assaulting women shouldn't be criminal because women are somehow evil? Because I've seen nothing to suggest that. In fact, I haven't seen any transcripts at all. Do you know of any?
All I've seen are a few out-of-context, heavily editorialized snippets, but I'm sure you're not basing your judgment on just that. That would be pretty irresponsible.
Lawyers don't have magical immunity from my judgment - there are ethical ways to defend people and unethical ways. Stokke is a vile, misogynist, scumbag lawyer.
Yeah, you can judge. Your judgment might mean more if it were well-supported, but whatever.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:24 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
What on earth? I don't even know how to respond to this. Instead making a bizarre analogy, why don't you just say whatever it is you're trying to say?
Do you think Stokke argued in court that sexually assaulting women shouldn't be criminal because women are somehow evil? Because I've seen nothing to suggest that. In fact, I haven't seen any transcripts at all. Do you know of any?
All I've seen are a few out-of-context, heavily editorialized snippets, but I'm sure you're not basing your judgment on just that. That would be pretty irresponsible.
Lawyers don't have magical immunity from my judgment - there are ethical ways to defend people and unethical ways. Stokke is a vile, misogynist, scumbag lawyer.
Yeah, you can judge. Your judgment might mean more if it were well-supported, but whatever.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:24 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
All I've seen are a few out-of-context, heavily editorialized snippets, but I'm sure you're not basing your judgment on just that.
Actually I'm seeing multiple news stories - including telling quotes - that collectively paint a consistent picture of Stokke as someone not averse to exploiting misogynistic prejudices for his defense tactics:
posted by dgaicun at 2:59 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Actually I'm seeing multiple news stories - including telling quotes - that collectively paint a consistent picture of Stokke as someone not averse to exploiting misogynistic prejudices for his defense tactics:
“You dance around a pole, don’t you?” Stokke asked.More of the same in the gang rape trial:
Superior Court Judge William Evans ruled the question irrelevant.
Stokke saw he was scoring points with the jury.
“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked...
“You do the dancing to get men to do what you what them to do,” said Stokke. “And the same thing happened out there on that highway [in Laguna Beach]. You wanted [Park] to take some sex!”
Lucy said, “No sir,” the sex wasn’t consensual. Stokke—usually a mellow fellow with a nasally, monotone voice—gripped his fists, stood upright, clenched his jaws and then thundered, “You had a buzz on [that night], didn’t you?”
... the 20-year-old victim, known as “Jane Doe"... criticized defense attorneys for characterizing her as a chronic liar and focusing on her sexual past.Oooh, a stripper, a porn star - baaad girls.
“I didn’t understand why they were torturing me. Wasn’t the one night enough?” she said...
[Haidl's defense attorney, Allan Stokke et al] attacked Jane Doe’s credibility during both trials. They argued that the girl faked unconsciousness. They painted her as a sexually promiscuous teen who told friends that she wanted to be a porn star.
posted by dgaicun at 2:59 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh man, who knew irony could be this delicious?
posted by mullingitover at 3:14 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by mullingitover at 3:14 AM on June 5, 2007
Some laws are even predicated specifically on the idea that Stokke's defense tactics are unethical.
posted by dgaicun at 3:37 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by dgaicun at 3:37 AM on June 5, 2007
“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked...
Ugh. Well as I said, different lawyers, different tactics.
I doubt the father appreciates any connection here, though. In fact his former case seems to bear out what he would seemingly consider the important distinction: “She got what she wanted,” Al Stokke said, of the stripper. “She’s an overtly sexual person.” Though I would caution against assuming anything about what someone thinks from what they argue in court (laywer or client).
posted by dreamsign at 3:58 AM on June 5, 2007
Ugh. Well as I said, different lawyers, different tactics.
I doubt the father appreciates any connection here, though. In fact his former case seems to bear out what he would seemingly consider the important distinction: “She got what she wanted,” Al Stokke said, of the stripper. “She’s an overtly sexual person.” Though I would caution against assuming anything about what someone thinks from what they argue in court (laywer or client).
posted by dreamsign at 3:58 AM on June 5, 2007
“You dance around a pole, don’t you?”
Yeah, a vaulting pole.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:20 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yeah, a vaulting pole.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:20 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Let me see if I can get this all straight.
The guy, Stokke, is a defense attorney who has defended in a ruthless way some people who, it would appear, have done some quite despicable things.
Notably, in these two examples he has portrayed the defendents, women, in a pretty demeaning way.
Ironically enough, his very own daughter (who is hawt (sorry for the swerve into technical jargon there)), is currently getting a lot of attention, some of it pretty lewd. Some of the commentary, in a further irony, strikingly similar to her father's in it's use of 'pole' imagery...
Yet his response to this has been, on the whole, pretty level-headed. He isn't pulling her from competitions, making her wear a hijab, keeping her locked in the house. (Or beating her for dis-honoring the family). He's keeping an eye on it.
Man. What a sticky wicket. Out of popcorn, out of sunflower seeds... peanuts?
posted by From Bklyn at 5:46 AM on June 5, 2007
The guy, Stokke, is a defense attorney who has defended in a ruthless way some people who, it would appear, have done some quite despicable things.
Notably, in these two examples he has portrayed the defendents, women, in a pretty demeaning way.
Ironically enough, his very own daughter (who is hawt (sorry for the swerve into technical jargon there)), is currently getting a lot of attention, some of it pretty lewd. Some of the commentary, in a further irony, strikingly similar to her father's in it's use of 'pole' imagery...
Yet his response to this has been, on the whole, pretty level-headed. He isn't pulling her from competitions, making her wear a hijab, keeping her locked in the house. (Or beating her for dis-honoring the family). He's keeping an eye on it.
Man. What a sticky wicket. Out of popcorn, out of sunflower seeds... peanuts?
posted by From Bklyn at 5:46 AM on June 5, 2007
so basically, if her daddy is a lawyer who defends rapists and perverts she can just forget about being treated with dignity as a woman because she asked for it, right?
No, nobody said she asked for it, or that she shouldn't be treated with dignity.
What some people - myself included - are saying is that the father's position lies somewhere between ironic & hypocritical.
Granted, he is doing his job, and it is an important job. One could argue over his tactics, but I guess all's fair in a court of law, and his responsibilities are towards his client & towards the law. If the tactics get a bit dirty at times, I doubt he's the only attorney in the land to use such ploys. However we might react, it's the judge's call as to whether his lines of cross-examination are legal or not.
By way of disclaimer: my personal bugbear here is that, having completed a law degree, I chose not to practice specifically to avoid placing myself at any risk of finding myself in a position of putting cases forward in favour of things that I personally find morally reprehensible.
I am familiar with all the arguments: that it is for the judge &/or jury to decide, that everybody deserves a fair trial, that the lawyer's job is to present the best argument on behalf of the client, etc, but in a real-world situation, I would prefer not to have to take that role, and I remain slightly dubious, at least, over those who can be comfortable with it, especially if they run crying to the papers as soon as they find themselves on the wrong side of the stick.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:51 AM on June 5, 2007
No, nobody said she asked for it, or that she shouldn't be treated with dignity.
What some people - myself included - are saying is that the father's position lies somewhere between ironic & hypocritical.
Granted, he is doing his job, and it is an important job. One could argue over his tactics, but I guess all's fair in a court of law, and his responsibilities are towards his client & towards the law. If the tactics get a bit dirty at times, I doubt he's the only attorney in the land to use such ploys. However we might react, it's the judge's call as to whether his lines of cross-examination are legal or not.
By way of disclaimer: my personal bugbear here is that, having completed a law degree, I chose not to practice specifically to avoid placing myself at any risk of finding myself in a position of putting cases forward in favour of things that I personally find morally reprehensible.
I am familiar with all the arguments: that it is for the judge &/or jury to decide, that everybody deserves a fair trial, that the lawyer's job is to present the best argument on behalf of the client, etc, but in a real-world situation, I would prefer not to have to take that role, and I remain slightly dubious, at least, over those who can be comfortable with it, especially if they run crying to the papers as soon as they find themselves on the wrong side of the stick.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:51 AM on June 5, 2007
as far as I know, America - like Australia - has a system in which any attorney who feels the slightest moral discomfort in representing a particular client is entitled to step aside from the brief without any prejudice being inferred against the client's case.
Nope. IANYAL, but I did do my first year of law school in the US, and that is not the case -- we learned that the first week of class in Ethics. (Yes, yes, they do teach Ethics in law school.) If that were true, as dreamsign points out, there would be a lot more unrepresented defendants out there than there already are. There are a limited number of circumstances in which an attorney can dump a client. "Slight moral discomfort" is just something every attorney has to live with.
That said, this attorney just seems like a douche. While a lawyer's stance in court can't necessarily be imputed into his or her views outside the courtroom, it is entirely possible to mount a defense without making comments like "She got what she wanted, she’s an overtly sexual person" and claiming a rape victim was simply being ushered into the world of porn by some nice helpful guys. As dgaicun points out, rape shield laws are in effect to prevent exactly this sort of victim-blaming, but from what I understand their enforcement is unfortunately spotty and this lawyer probably knew he could get away with it, or simply didn't care. The legal profession does tend to attract those machiavellian types.
And like hurdy gurdy girl, I doubt he sees any significant connection between the wolves he represents and the ones leering at his daughter. (And -- seriously, guys, can we stop with the I'd Hit It!!s already? Poor kid just wants to play a sport.)
posted by AV at 6:03 AM on June 5, 2007
Nope. IANYAL, but I did do my first year of law school in the US, and that is not the case -- we learned that the first week of class in Ethics. (Yes, yes, they do teach Ethics in law school.) If that were true, as dreamsign points out, there would be a lot more unrepresented defendants out there than there already are. There are a limited number of circumstances in which an attorney can dump a client. "Slight moral discomfort" is just something every attorney has to live with.
That said, this attorney just seems like a douche. While a lawyer's stance in court can't necessarily be imputed into his or her views outside the courtroom, it is entirely possible to mount a defense without making comments like "She got what she wanted, she’s an overtly sexual person" and claiming a rape victim was simply being ushered into the world of porn by some nice helpful guys. As dgaicun points out, rape shield laws are in effect to prevent exactly this sort of victim-blaming, but from what I understand their enforcement is unfortunately spotty and this lawyer probably knew he could get away with it, or simply didn't care. The legal profession does tend to attract those machiavellian types.
And like hurdy gurdy girl, I doubt he sees any significant connection between the wolves he represents and the ones leering at his daughter. (And -- seriously, guys, can we stop with the I'd Hit It!!s already? Poor kid just wants to play a sport.)
posted by AV at 6:03 AM on June 5, 2007
There are a limited number of circumstances in which an attorney can dump a client.
What about declining to take a case in the first place? Unless they are a public defender, can't they choose who they will or won't represent? ("if you are charged with burglary, ok; if homicide, um, find somebody else, please....")
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:08 AM on June 5, 2007
What about declining to take a case in the first place? Unless they are a public defender, can't they choose who they will or won't represent? ("if you are charged with burglary, ok; if homicide, um, find somebody else, please....")
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:08 AM on June 5, 2007
Shitheel defends shitheels; film at eleven. This is only delicious irony if you're down with that whole sins of the father thing...it's not Allison Stokke's fault her dad's a creep.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:35 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:35 AM on June 5, 2007
UbuRovias, you claim to have a law degree but you don't seem to understand the system all that well. If someone comes to a defense attorney that they would like to hire, and says "I'm charged with homicide" all that means is that a guy in a government building somewhere thinks they have enough evidence to make that stick. If every single defense attorney in the world didn't have the stomach to defend those accused of disgusting acts, the system would not work.
The law school you went to also appears to have forgotten to teach you the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which is, you know, one of the cornerstones of common law. The concept that every defendant deserves competent representation is so basic to legal theory, I'm kinda confused as to what you thought you were getting into when you started three years and a hundred thousand dollars of legal education.
posted by Inkoate at 6:36 AM on June 5, 2007
The law school you went to also appears to have forgotten to teach you the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which is, you know, one of the cornerstones of common law. The concept that every defendant deserves competent representation is so basic to legal theory, I'm kinda confused as to what you thought you were getting into when you started three years and a hundred thousand dollars of legal education.
posted by Inkoate at 6:36 AM on June 5, 2007
Sports blogs talk about hot female athlete.. move along, nothing here. Said hot athlete freaks out about guys looking at here.. again nothing important. Washington Post writes a sensationalist human interest story.. still not much going on. Internet finds that her dad is a hypocrite. Yum! Internet love irony!
posted by jeffburdges at 6:42 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by jeffburdges at 6:42 AM on June 5, 2007
This is revaulting. [!]
posted by peacay at 7:09 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by peacay at 7:09 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Inkoate: yes, I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware that plenty of legal work has nothing at all to do with defending the indefensible, and that one can work in relatively clean fields or relatively dirty fields. It's a personal choice. To be honest, criminal law never appealed all that much to me, anyway, for reasons that ought to be obvious by now. It's great, though that it does to others who are willing to bear the onerous responsibility of all that tarnish. Personally, I quite admire the Parsees' approach of simply refusing to work in any industry that could compromise one's own morals.
(Side note: three years? In Australia, undergrad law requires that you take a second degree on the side, so make that six. A hundred thousand dollars? Heh. Sucker Americans. We're getting to be nearly as bad as you under our current Bush-loving asshole, but when I studied, we were just coming down from the free education policies of the 70s & 80s, so it was around AUD$15K, all up. No matter. As you certainly know, little more than 50% of law grads ever practice. It's a respected degree for all kinds of things, and hey, I got the entrance mark, and couldn't think of anything better to do at the time. Either that or Med, and the latter seemed too restrictive...)
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:12 AM on June 5, 2007
(Side note: three years? In Australia, undergrad law requires that you take a second degree on the side, so make that six. A hundred thousand dollars? Heh. Sucker Americans. We're getting to be nearly as bad as you under our current Bush-loving asshole, but when I studied, we were just coming down from the free education policies of the 70s & 80s, so it was around AUD$15K, all up. No matter. As you certainly know, little more than 50% of law grads ever practice. It's a respected degree for all kinds of things, and hey, I got the entrance mark, and couldn't think of anything better to do at the time. Either that or Med, and the latter seemed too restrictive...)
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:12 AM on June 5, 2007
can't they choose who they will or won't represent?
Well, yes and no. According to the Ethical Considerations that attach to the American Bar Association's Model Code of Professional Responsibility:
EC 2-27
Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse.
Also, there's a general duty which a lawyer has to make the justice system accessible, which is more consistent with declining clients based on the strength of their case (or lack thereof) rather than their personal odiousness. I think in this case, the choice is more whether or not to become a criminal defense attorney, rather than cherry-picking clients.
posted by AV at 7:20 AM on June 5, 2007
Well, yes and no. According to the Ethical Considerations that attach to the American Bar Association's Model Code of Professional Responsibility:
EC 2-27
Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse.
Also, there's a general duty which a lawyer has to make the justice system accessible, which is more consistent with declining clients based on the strength of their case (or lack thereof) rather than their personal odiousness. I think in this case, the choice is more whether or not to become a criminal defense attorney, rather than cherry-picking clients.
posted by AV at 7:20 AM on June 5, 2007
Oh, and this (duh):
EC 2-26
A lawyer is under no obligation to act as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client; but in furtherance of the objective of the bar to make legal services fully available, a lawyer should not lightly decline proffered employment. The fulfillment of this objective requires acceptance by a lawyer of his share of tendered employment which may be unattractive both to him and the bar generally.
posted by AV at 7:21 AM on June 5, 2007
EC 2-26
A lawyer is under no obligation to act as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client; but in furtherance of the objective of the bar to make legal services fully available, a lawyer should not lightly decline proffered employment. The fulfillment of this objective requires acceptance by a lawyer of his share of tendered employment which may be unattractive both to him and the bar generally.
posted by AV at 7:21 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:25 AM on June 5, 2007
And peacay is in pole position for the humor race.
Yes, he's set the bar pretty high.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:35 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yes, he's set the bar pretty high.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:35 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wasn't this a deleted post a little while ago?
Wasn't this topic discussed in the original pole vaulter thread?
And yeah, the father and his clients are slime.
posted by NorthernLite at 7:40 AM on June 5, 2007
Wasn't this topic discussed in the original pole vaulter thread?
And yeah, the father and his clients are slime.
posted by NorthernLite at 7:40 AM on June 5, 2007
No one made Stokke defend these reprehensible folks
Well, I think the point is that no one made him become a defense attorney. I think we're all on the same page about the fact that this guy must be experiencing some cognitive dissonance, though.
posted by AV at 7:55 AM on June 5, 2007
Well, I think the point is that no one made him become a defense attorney. I think we're all on the same page about the fact that this guy must be experiencing some cognitive dissonance, though.
posted by AV at 7:55 AM on June 5, 2007
cognitive dissonance? are you sure that your confirmation bias isn't blinding you to the fact that correlation does not equal causation?
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:01 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:01 AM on June 5, 2007
At least I don't feel so bad about ejaculating on that photo
I hope you printed it out first!
posted by delmoi at 8:26 AM on June 5, 2007
I hope you printed it out first!
posted by delmoi at 8:26 AM on June 5, 2007
He could, indeed, step away from the case at any point--the 13th Amendment guarantees that.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:25 AM on June 5 [+]
[!]
That's not true. Judges can appoint lawyers by court order to represent defendents, and the attorney is obliged to perfrom. And in general, unless a lawyer's moral distaste for his client is so great that it compromises his advocacy, he can't just drop representation.
Also, what's all this about criminal defense law being inherently evil? Some clients are innocent, some have had their fourth amendment rights violated, and some deserve lenient sentences because of their particular characteristics. And sometimes the law sucks and your client made a stupid mistake, and working to get him the best deal possible is a good, moral thing. Good criminal defense, even for the worst criminals, is also essential to maintaining the appearance of fairness of the justice system.
posted by footnote at 8:30 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:25 AM on June 5 [+]
[!]
That's not true. Judges can appoint lawyers by court order to represent defendents, and the attorney is obliged to perfrom. And in general, unless a lawyer's moral distaste for his client is so great that it compromises his advocacy, he can't just drop representation.
Also, what's all this about criminal defense law being inherently evil? Some clients are innocent, some have had their fourth amendment rights violated, and some deserve lenient sentences because of their particular characteristics. And sometimes the law sucks and your client made a stupid mistake, and working to get him the best deal possible is a good, moral thing. Good criminal defense, even for the worst criminals, is also essential to maintaining the appearance of fairness of the justice system.
posted by footnote at 8:30 AM on June 5, 2007
I don't know this particular lawyer's circumstances and frankly, I can't be bothered to find out. If the question is whether lawyers are free to pick and choose cases, most are not. If you are an associate at a firm, you will work cases you do not want. If you are a legal aid lawyer/public defender, you will work cases you do not want. If you a Crown/district attorney, you will pursue charges and possibly appeals (Canada) that you personally may not think are justified. This is the nature of having a boss.
I take it none of you have them?
(yes, professionals have boards of practice, and this is one way they differ, but refusing a case is something few non-solo-practitioners can afford to do more than once.)
How you carry a case is a different matter, though your style and tactics may also be dictated to a large degree by those you work for, and by that I mean both your firm/agency and your client. You may have some leeway, and if you don't like your job, there are others out there, but it isn't easy. There's a ton of lawyers out there and only so many "choice" employers.
Take the huge number of environmental-law-eager students who graduate from law schools every year to find... that most employers of environmental law lawyers are the pulp and paper mills, mining and drilling companies, etc.. They're the ones with the bucks, so they're the ones with the jobs. (so, they tell themselves that they'll acquire the skills and then "defect". But after 10 or 20 years...)
People don't seem to realize just how client-driven the practice of law is.
All that goes to the issue of taking cases and before that, finding employers, though. Not whether this guy shouldn't be putting his trade to use in defence of his daughter. I mean c'mon. I prefer karma to bite the individual, in any case; not their offspring. Besides which, lawyers will argue more than one mutually exclusive theory (of the facts, of human nature, of justice) within one case nevermind between cases. ("And in the alternative, I submit that...")
A friend of mine in school was a bit put off by my saying that lawyers were mercenary. "No, no," I corrected. "I said lawyers were mercenaries." It's not a characteristic of the work. It is the work. At least for most.
And on preview, I'll add as footnote what footnote said. You need some faith in the system, I think to practice criminal defence and sleep at night, but it's integral to the system and the work itself is honorable.
posted by dreamsign at 8:36 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
I take it none of you have them?
(yes, professionals have boards of practice, and this is one way they differ, but refusing a case is something few non-solo-practitioners can afford to do more than once.)
How you carry a case is a different matter, though your style and tactics may also be dictated to a large degree by those you work for, and by that I mean both your firm/agency and your client. You may have some leeway, and if you don't like your job, there are others out there, but it isn't easy. There's a ton of lawyers out there and only so many "choice" employers.
Take the huge number of environmental-law-eager students who graduate from law schools every year to find... that most employers of environmental law lawyers are the pulp and paper mills, mining and drilling companies, etc.. They're the ones with the bucks, so they're the ones with the jobs. (so, they tell themselves that they'll acquire the skills and then "defect". But after 10 or 20 years...)
People don't seem to realize just how client-driven the practice of law is.
All that goes to the issue of taking cases and before that, finding employers, though. Not whether this guy shouldn't be putting his trade to use in defence of his daughter. I mean c'mon. I prefer karma to bite the individual, in any case; not their offspring. Besides which, lawyers will argue more than one mutually exclusive theory (of the facts, of human nature, of justice) within one case nevermind between cases. ("And in the alternative, I submit that...")
A friend of mine in school was a bit put off by my saying that lawyers were mercenary. "No, no," I corrected. "I said lawyers were mercenaries." It's not a characteristic of the work. It is the work. At least for most.
And on preview, I'll add as footnote what footnote said. You need some faith in the system, I think to practice criminal defence and sleep at night, but it's integral to the system and the work itself is honorable.
posted by dreamsign at 8:36 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
That's not true.No, it is true. Sure, there may be consequences for the attorney, serious consequences, disbarment, imprisonment, even, but he cannot be forced to represent anyone.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:38 AM on June 5, 2007
No one made Stokke defend these reprehensible folks.
it's funny, though ... i reckon there are several people here who would scream bloody murder if someone started a campaign against lawyers who defend "the terrorists"
or complain that poor defendants charged with awful enough crimes to land on death row didn't get proper legal representation ...
or protest that if the duke lacrosse defendants hadn't been rich and white that they would have been railroaded ...
here's a thought - the failure of a certain kind of defendant to find effective legal representation could be a greater social evil than sexual assault and creepiness
see iran, china and stalin era russia for details
posted by pyramid termite at 8:41 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
it's funny, though ... i reckon there are several people here who would scream bloody murder if someone started a campaign against lawyers who defend "the terrorists"
or complain that poor defendants charged with awful enough crimes to land on death row didn't get proper legal representation ...
or protest that if the duke lacrosse defendants hadn't been rich and white that they would have been railroaded ...
here's a thought - the failure of a certain kind of defendant to find effective legal representation could be a greater social evil than sexual assault and creepiness
see iran, china and stalin era russia for details
posted by pyramid termite at 8:41 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
You need some faith in the system, I think to practice criminal defence and sleep at night, but it's integral to the system and the work itself is honorable.
Right on. And I'll add that of the criminal defense lawyers I know, what keeps them up at night (usually) is not worrying that they are getting criminals off because, frankly, that doesn't happen very often -- defenders know most of their clients are guilty, and that most of them will be convicted. Instead, they worry about the horrible jail conditions, their client who just committed suicide, their homeless client, the 15 year old going back to juvie, etc. The criminal justice system is flooded with sad screw-ups, not super-twisted criminal master minds.
posted by footnote at 8:46 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Right on. And I'll add that of the criminal defense lawyers I know, what keeps them up at night (usually) is not worrying that they are getting criminals off because, frankly, that doesn't happen very often -- defenders know most of their clients are guilty, and that most of them will be convicted. Instead, they worry about the horrible jail conditions, their client who just committed suicide, their homeless client, the 15 year old going back to juvie, etc. The criminal justice system is flooded with sad screw-ups, not super-twisted criminal master minds.
posted by footnote at 8:46 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
No, it is true. Sure, there may be consequences for the attorney, serious consequences, disbarment, imprisonment, even, but he cannot be forced to represent anyone.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:38 AM on June 5 [+]
[!]
I'm not sure about that. A judge could jail or fine a lawyer for contempt if he refused to represent someone on grounds other than that he was not competent to represent him. So a lawyer has the power to refuse an appointment, but not the right.
posted by footnote at 8:50 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:38 AM on June 5 [+]
[!]
I'm not sure about that. A judge could jail or fine a lawyer for contempt if he refused to represent someone on grounds other than that he was not competent to represent him. So a lawyer has the power to refuse an appointment, but not the right.
posted by footnote at 8:50 AM on June 5, 2007
For me, it's not that Stokke took these clients on; it's the way he handled his work. Granted, playing to the puritanical/misogynistic streak in the jury may have been the only means he saw of getting his guys off the hook. I'm not sure which makes him seem less objectionable...the notion that he was willing fight dirty if the facts weren't on his side, or the idea that he's just a scumbag who really figured, "Meh, she's a whore, anyway...that's what they do! C'mon, fellas...tell me you wouldn't have popped her! Am I right?" I don't think either one makes him seem like a great guy, but I would argue the former is more amoral than really wrong.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:51 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:51 AM on June 5, 2007
For Allison Stokke to have chosen to be a pole vaulter amounts almost to an ironic mockery of her corrupted and degenerate father:
“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked...
'Yes dad, I do, but no matter how far I am able to rise above it for a few moments, I still have to come down into the pit of slime I grew up in.'
posted by jamjam at 9:16 AM on June 5, 2007
“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked...
'Yes dad, I do, but no matter how far I am able to rise above it for a few moments, I still have to come down into the pit of slime I grew up in.'
posted by jamjam at 9:16 AM on June 5, 2007
UbuRoivas
Maybe cognitive dissonance wasn't the best term to have used, I wrote rather hastily -- I was just pointing out that what we all do seem to agree on is that there's a disconnect between what the attorney said in court about two victims of sexual assault (that they wanted it) and what he must be feeling towards his daughter (that the attention is unwanted).
posted by AV at 10:01 AM on June 5, 2007
Maybe cognitive dissonance wasn't the best term to have used, I wrote rather hastily -- I was just pointing out that what we all do seem to agree on is that there's a disconnect between what the attorney said in court about two victims of sexual assault (that they wanted it) and what he must be feeling towards his daughter (that the attention is unwanted).
posted by AV at 10:01 AM on June 5, 2007
My father came to carreer day at school, and talked to my guitarist.
Please, please, please...if you want to become a lawyer, don't.
His main points were that the profession is overcrowded and no longer as profitable as people seem to think it is, and that while arguing a case in trial is really, really, rerally fun, just like on television, most of what you do is paperwork.
Someone who was about to graduate, and really psyched about moving towards law school, was not deterred, and asked a lot of questions.
"So, do you have to defend people even if they're guilty?"
My father, who tried a couple criminal cases in college, and found it distasteful, said this:
In private practice, you don't have to defend anyone you don't want to, but if you wantto feed your family, you will. Everyone is entitled to equal representation, and it may not surprise you, but the true-blue 100% innocent do not have as many legal problems as people who are less so. There's an old saying that goes like this, 'A bisexual has twice the chances of getting a date on a Saturday night' so most lawyers hedge their bets by defending the innocent and the guilty.
So I don't think there's anything wrong with this jerkoff defending the clients mentioned here. I can almost defend his use of the "she was asking for it" defense, because apparently it works. Often. Still, I can't. It's ghoulish and misogynistic, and possibly the evilest way to try a case. I'd like to believe that in the next generation at least, people won't fall for it, but my father also told me something to the effect of how most people don't want to be in juries, and try to get out of it, so what you get is often scraping pretty close to the bottom of the barrel and you can only hope that lowest common denominator or not, twelve people put to the same task will come to a reasonable conclusion, and more often than more-often-than-not, the guilty will go to jail and the innocent will not.
posted by elr at 10:02 AM on June 5, 2007
Please, please, please...if you want to become a lawyer, don't.
His main points were that the profession is overcrowded and no longer as profitable as people seem to think it is, and that while arguing a case in trial is really, really, rerally fun, just like on television, most of what you do is paperwork.
Someone who was about to graduate, and really psyched about moving towards law school, was not deterred, and asked a lot of questions.
"So, do you have to defend people even if they're guilty?"
My father, who tried a couple criminal cases in college, and found it distasteful, said this:
In private practice, you don't have to defend anyone you don't want to, but if you wantto feed your family, you will. Everyone is entitled to equal representation, and it may not surprise you, but the true-blue 100% innocent do not have as many legal problems as people who are less so. There's an old saying that goes like this, 'A bisexual has twice the chances of getting a date on a Saturday night' so most lawyers hedge their bets by defending the innocent and the guilty.
So I don't think there's anything wrong with this jerkoff defending the clients mentioned here. I can almost defend his use of the "she was asking for it" defense, because apparently it works. Often. Still, I can't. It's ghoulish and misogynistic, and possibly the evilest way to try a case. I'd like to believe that in the next generation at least, people won't fall for it, but my father also told me something to the effect of how most people don't want to be in juries, and try to get out of it, so what you get is often scraping pretty close to the bottom of the barrel and you can only hope that lowest common denominator or not, twelve people put to the same task will come to a reasonable conclusion, and more often than more-often-than-not, the guilty will go to jail and the innocent will not.
posted by elr at 10:02 AM on June 5, 2007
A lot of the comments here seem willing to condemn the lawyer for contesting a factual issue, and that's disturbing. If an element of the crime is the victim's lack of consent, the lawyer must be allowed to challenge the state's charge that no consent was given.
I know that many Metafilter users embrace a narrative of sexual assault in which alleged victims simply do not lie, but this is an ideological stance.
People think that the lawyer shouldn't have argued that the victim was asking for it, but I don't see how we have enough information to make that call. If there was no way to make a good faith argument that she asked for it, then I agree, it was out of line. He should've stuck to arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove a lack of consent. If there was evidence that she asked for it, though, then the defendant deserves to have that argued, no matter how distasteful some of you might find that.
I know you'll cry, but she couldn't have asked for it! Women never consent to being treated demeaningly but then later file charges! This is an idealogical point, though, not a factual one.
Criminal defendants deserve to have the individual facts establishing guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply taking certain allegations as fact because they conform to a certain narrative of sexual assault is not acceptable.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:39 AM on June 5, 2007
I know that many Metafilter users embrace a narrative of sexual assault in which alleged victims simply do not lie, but this is an ideological stance.
People think that the lawyer shouldn't have argued that the victim was asking for it, but I don't see how we have enough information to make that call. If there was no way to make a good faith argument that she asked for it, then I agree, it was out of line. He should've stuck to arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove a lack of consent. If there was evidence that she asked for it, though, then the defendant deserves to have that argued, no matter how distasteful some of you might find that.
I know you'll cry, but she couldn't have asked for it! Women never consent to being treated demeaningly but then later file charges! This is an idealogical point, though, not a factual one.
Criminal defendants deserve to have the individual facts establishing guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply taking certain allegations as fact because they conform to a certain narrative of sexual assault is not acceptable.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:39 AM on June 5, 2007
"Consent" is kind of a funny term to throw around when a cop uses his authority to pull you over, and you know that he could use his authority to put you in jail. That's not narrative; that's fact.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:09 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:09 AM on June 5, 2007
In Australia, undergrad law requires that you take a second degree on the side, so make that six.
No, it doesn't. My alma mater still offers a four-year LLB.
Sexual double standards suck.
posted by goo at 11:21 AM on June 5, 2007
No, it doesn't. My alma mater still offers a four-year LLB.
Sexual double standards suck.
posted by goo at 11:21 AM on June 5, 2007
Heteroscedasticity, heh, heh.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:36 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:36 AM on June 5, 2007
A lot of the comments here seem willing to condemn the lawyer for contesting a factual issue, and that's disturbing.
So do you actually practice law, Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America? Because I'm starting to get the sneaking feeling that you're actually just practicing the stuff that you're currently learning at law school on US.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:59 AM on June 5, 2007
So do you actually practice law, Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America? Because I'm starting to get the sneaking feeling that you're actually just practicing the stuff that you're currently learning at law school on US.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:59 AM on June 5, 2007
Hmm, so this record-breaking, state-champion, straight A student (who is also apparently quite attractive) happens to be the daughter of an aggressive type-a personality attorney? I don't think I ever would have seen that coming.
(Note: I don't agree with the tactic he used when defending his client, but I respect that he was doing his job. It's not one I could do.
posted by quin at 1:11 PM on June 5, 2007
(Note: I don't agree with the tactic he used when defending his client, but I respect that he was doing his job. It's not one I could do.
posted by quin at 1:11 PM on June 5, 2007
AV: my comment was absurd. I just hadn't heard "cognitive dissonance" uttered here in a while, and it immediately conjured up the other two elements of the MeFi Holy Trinity.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:23 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:23 PM on June 5, 2007
here's a thought - the failure of a certain kind of defendant to find effective legal representation could be a greater social evil than sexual assault and creepiness
see iran, china and stalin era russia for details
In Soviet Russia, lawyer screws you.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:25 PM on June 5, 2007
see iran, china and stalin era russia for details
In Soviet Russia, lawyer screws you.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:25 PM on June 5, 2007
UbuRoivas: okay, good, because my first reaction to reading that was um...what? And then I spent way too much time trying to think of a delicately worded reply that tactfully hinted that perhaps those terms might not mean what you think they mean, and then I just scrapped it and posted what I did. Not to worry, though; next time I'll be sure to work confirmation bias and correlation not-equaling causation into my comments as well.
posted by AV at 4:55 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by AV at 4:55 PM on June 5, 2007
goo & liquorice: I swear that when I did my LLB, it was a hard rule for undergrads. Perhaps the rules have changed, or else it differs from state to state (I'm in Sydney, & you seem to be in Qld & Vic, respectively). Education remains, at least nominally, a state matter (although I slept through Constitutional Law & could be wrong!) and our various Law Societies & Bar Associations may have different rules for admission, or for recognition of qualifications. Having just checked the UNSW website, single degrees are still for postgrads only. It might be the University's rule. I forget.
AV: I'm sorry you spent so much time on a throwaway quip, but have no fear: those terms seldom mean what commenters think they mean, so you needn't worry too much. Throw them around liberally.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:07 PM on June 5, 2007
AV: I'm sorry you spent so much time on a throwaway quip, but have no fear: those terms seldom mean what commenters think they mean, so you needn't worry too much. Throw them around liberally.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:07 PM on June 5, 2007
« Older If you can't say something nice... | Betelnut Girls Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”
posted by mulligan at 8:29 PM on June 4, 2007