But knowing that being gang-raped did in fact cause severe mental harm (which has it’s physical manifestations), it seems rather petty and scuzzy to say that.
“Aside from her torn and worn vagina your honor, I see no reason my client should serve 15 years for leading a gang rape against this woman. After all, it isn’t like he left scars on her body or anything…just on her mind, your honor!”
What if it was your daughter and the defense presented such a statement at the clemency hearing? Would you not be outraged?
i am not trying to say that the attorney should be disbarred, or that he did anything illegal. I am saying that in terms of presenting mitigating circumstances to try to alleviate jail time for your client, this is a sad, morally questionable way to go about it.
I guess I keep presuming defense attorneys have morals. My bad.
Morally questionable, maybe. I mean, I wouldn’t have said it.
FTR, I don’t have a daughter, and I can’t really say how I would react. If she didn’t actually suffer physical injury, especially. In any case, I suspect my outrage would be pretty generally focused on the perpetrator.
And your argument earlier stated that the perpetrator’s mouthpiece is the attorney acting on the perpetrator’s wishes, right? So wouldn’t you then focus the outrage on both, since they are by definition in collusion?
Ok. So since he didn’t maim her physically, you agree his sentence should be lower than the absolute maximum.
So why do you castigate the lawyer for laying out that fact at his sentencing hearing - a proceeding meant to apprise the judge of all the relevant factors for imposing a sentence?
What should the lawyer have done, if not mention that there was no physical harm?
I think they want him to say :- Yes my client did rape her, and afforded many other males the opportunity to rape her again, and again, and again. He may have cause her lasting phsychological suffering, but at least he didn’t cause her any lasting physical harm. And can we have a few more years added onto his sentence?
So the devil appears to a lawyer and says to him, “I’ll give you everything you could ever desire. Riches, fame, power, Laetitia Casta covered in Reddi Wip. There’s just one catch. All of this is in exchange for your soul.”
I’m given to understand that if said lawyer did that, said lawyer would become said hamburger flipper.
(IOW that’s grounds for disbarment isn’t it?)
Arthur Kirkland: The one thing that bothered me, the one thing that stayed in my mind and I couldn’t get rid of it, that haunted me, was why. Why would she lie? What was her motive for lying? If my client is innocent, she’s lying, why? Was it blackmail? No. Was it jealousy? No. Yesterday I found out why. She doesn’t have a motive, you know why? Because she’s not lying… And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution is not going to get that man today, no, because I’m gonna get him! my client, the Honorable Henry T. Fleming, should go right to fucking jail! The son of a bitch is guilty! That man is guilty! That man, there, that man is a slime! he is a slime! If he’s allowed to go free, then something really wrong is goin’ on here!
Judge Rayford: Mr. Kirkland you are out of order!
Arthur Kirkland: You’re out of order! You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They’re out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he’d like to do it again! He told me so! It’s just a show! It’s a show! It’s “Let’s Make A Deal”! “Let’s Make A Deal”! Hey Frank, you wanna “Make A Deal”? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the shit out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?
Frank Bowers: Dammit!
Arthur Kirkland: [to Judge Fleming] You, you sonofabitch, you! You’re supposed to stand for somethin’! You’re supposed to protect people! But instead you rape and murder them!
[dragged out of court by bailiffs]
Arthur Kirkland: You killed McCullough! You killed him! Hold it! Hold it! I just completed my opening statement!
Exactly.
Would one of the lawyers in this thread want to explain* why if;
I punch a guy in the face and give him a black eye, I’m in trouble but I might not be facing any prison time.
I punch a guy in the face and break break his jaw, I’m in real trouble and most probably looking at serving some time.
I punch a guy in the face and he falls backwards and hits his head on the curb causing permanent brain damage, I’m fucked.
(*Hint for the folks who just don’t seem to get it, it’s the same act in each case, assault and/or battery but the damage done to the victim is an aggravating factor when it comes time for sentencing. The fact that the guy with the black eye says he’s more traumatized than the guy with the broken jaw is largely irrelevant because psychological trauma is really difficult to quantify but physical damage isn’t.
The law (in most jurisdictions) has always held that, an assault that cause no real damage (a bruise) is not as serious as an assault that causes real but reparable damage (broken bones) and an assault that causes permanent damage (disfigurement, dismemberment) is the most serious of all.
It should also be remembered that this hierarchy of severity dates back to a time before the concept of psychological anything existed. An eye for an eye, a tooth for PTSD?)
That same mindset is just not applicable to rape, not one bit.
So in your mind: I punch a guy in the eye, he gets a black eye, and other than that is fine. I get charged with assault.
I rape a girl, but she’s physically fine (so we think). I get charged with assault.
Isn’t rape a different crime, with different paramaters to define it than simple assault? Isn’t violation of that type worse than getting punched in the eye?
Of course rape is worse than a punch in the eye. Anyone claimed differently? That’s not what a punch in the eye is being compared to. The question is whether “rape, plus having a nipple sawed off with a rusty pocket-knife” is worse than “rape, without ditto”, for instance.
Nobody interested in addressing this issue? I think pravnik touched on it earlier. Anyway, I’m going to go ahead and assume I’m right about this.
Reasons why I think the defense in the OP case was completely in the right to make the points they did:
The statement that there was no lasting physical damage was true. How can it be wrong to point out the truth?
All rapes are bad, but some are worse than others. Worse rapes deserve harsher sentences. Therefore if there are facts in the case that mitigate the severity of the rape, someone must point them out. Who should do this? Not the judge. Certainly not the prosecutor. Obviously it is the defense attorney’s job.
You’re confused about how the law works. If Crime A is inherently worse than Crime B, then the law might say (for example) that Crime A gets 15 to 35 years while Crime B gets 10 to 20 years. And then maybe Crime C gets 25 to life. The relative badness of different kinds of crime is taken care of by the statute. At the sentencing phase of the trial, the task is to determine how the offense compares to others of the same type.
If you accept that some rapes are worse than others, you also have to accept that some rapes are better than others. While being gang-raped for any amount of time is probably worse than what most of us have experienced, it is likely that worse rapes than the one described in the OP article have occurred in that jurisdiction. (I think enough lurid hypothetical examples have already been posted!) Therefore, the defense is justified in saying, in effect, “it could have been worse.” It’s true, and someone has to say it.
The only thing that really bothers me about this case is that the guy is going to get out of prison eventually. I happen to think that people who commit multiple violent sex crimes should get life automatically. But that’s a problem for Australian lawmakers to deal with.
It’s the mental disconnect required in order to do this that gets to people.
I can see how you can represent someone who you strongly suspect to be guilty. You think they’ve told you a pack of lies, you’ve gently hinted that lying to your lawyer isn’t a good strategy, but they’re insistent, so you go with it. You do the best you can, and that’s fair enough.
But representing someone who you know to be guilty is something else. Presumably you know for sure because of some piece of evidence you successfully excluded. So you advise them not to take the stand so they don’t perjure themselves, and otherwise attack the credibility of eyewitnesses, introduce uncertainty about timing and motive, and generally fight the case. Knowing the whole time that they did it. I can see it needs to be done, for want of anything better. But I couldn’t do it personally, and I’m not sure how I feel about people who CAN do it. Don’t you ever find yourself wishing the prosecution did a better job? Are you thinking, “come on you idiot, I’m practically giving it to you on a plate here?” How does it work, inside your head, if that’s not too personal a question?
FUCK YOU YOU FUCKIN LIBERAL BLEEDING HEART FUCKS . The appeals process is a joke (as is the criminal justice system). Once convicted you should pay the price ie: serve the sentence…not be able to appel the appels over and over or try to get your sentence reduced. Convict up…do your time. If any of you or a loved one was the victim of a (horrific, violent, vile, deadly) crime your tune would change. The more money a criminal has the more vigorous his/her appels , while the poor just go to jail (or poor victims see no justice) and lawyers get rich. Make it truly fair… NO appel after the trial NO sentence reduction hearing, NO PTI…NO BULLSHIT… DO THE CRIME DO THE TIME BRING BACK THE DEATH PENELTY Make life suck to be a criminal. And again…Have you or a loved one be the victim of crime, and see a rich criminal get off or a wrist slap and see if your tune doesn`t change
Because it’s not Katie’s job to make sure the guilty are punished- it’s Katie’s job to make sure that EVERYONE gets a fair trial.
Katie doesn’t decide what the facts of the case are, or even whether they’re relevant.
The individual defendant is not as important in the grand scheme of things as the integrity of the system.
If the cops beat a confession out of a murderer, or if the cops by illegal search uncover a ring of child exploitation, and that evidence never sees the light of day, that’s not because Katie became a conspirator in the crime, it’s because the system is supposed to be held accountable.
We have an aspirational system, not a pragmatic one. The system defends the innocent- it does not punish the guilty.
I’ve never blamed a defense attorney for a case I lost, because if the guy actually did it, we could have used the system to get him and we didn’t.
Edited to add:
I can’t wait until your pleasant attitude gets you accused of a crime you didn’t commit.
I didn’t really ask a “why” question. I believe in the adversarial system, and somebody HAS to put the case for each side. Regarding the OP, if appealing a sentence, someone HAS to put the case that the harm done doesn’t merit the sentence received. Even if they don’t believe in the case they’re trying to make.
What I was hoping to explore (and maybe the Pit isn’t the place to do it) was the mental gymnastics required to be able to do the job. The separation between what you’re saying, and what you feel. Devil’s Advocate is all very well in theory, but personally I just couldn’t bring myself to give my all for someone I regarded as a piece of shit. I couldn’t detach myself, logic be damned. Which would make me a lousy lawyer, I guess! So I was wondering how lawyers themselves deal with it. Whether they learn that detachment, or if they’ve always had it, and that’s why they become lawyers.
huck tooey, I’m not sure who you think you’re addressing, but there’s at least two opposing points of view in this thread, and you don’t seem to be on the side of any of them.
In cases like that, the only way I win is if someone else drops the ball. It’s not always easy to watch someone walk out of a courtroom when you know they did it. What makes me able to do it is this: if the state can’t prove their case, for whatever reason, they shouldn’t get a conviction. Period. The system is designed to protect the innocent, and along the way, guilty people get protected as well.
If you put 100 people in a room, and you know that 99 of them are guilty of something- some of them very serious crimes- and only one guy is innocent, and you can choose to put them all in prison or let all of them go, which would you do? If you pick “put them all in prison”, does your answer change if the one innocent person is you?
