Of course, you think that the L.A. district and their lawyers are assholes, blaming the victim, bringing up her past sexual history. But a judge, who knows the age of consent in California is 18, will see it for what it is. Then you get to this little line:
That’s right. The judge thinks them bringing up the idea that she’s a slut is not only justified, but means it was really her fault. Nevermind that the guy was already convicted of a crime that specifically exists to say that children under a certain age are not “mature enough” to consent to sexual activity.
And for those that are inevitably going to jump to the judge’s defense: if it is the law, it is a horrible one, completely inconsistent. This isn’t mitigating factors. “The judge ruled in favor of the district.” Fuck the lawyers for bringing it up, and fuck the judge for agreeing with them.
So the teacher has already, very properly, been punished for lewd acts with a minor, and this is a separate case in which the girl is trying to get some money for herself, and the judge applies the law as it actually is and not as you think it ought to be? I can see why you’d be outraged.
Wow, talk about a misleading OP. You could’ve mentioned that the teacher is already in prison, or that the current lawsuit is over the girl suing the school district for money.
Since you brought Lolita up, can you explain how it applies to this case?
Humbert essentially drugged, kidnapped and dragged Lola all over the country while he was having sex with her. Most of the sex in the book was pretty rapey, even if you ignore the age difference.
In the case you linked to, it sounds like the girl went out of her way to go and have sex with the teacher.
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just not sure how you’re drawing a comparison to Lolita.
I think saying it was her “fault” is a bit charged, but it does sound like there is no basis on which the district was responsible, because there was nothing the school could have done to prevent it. I don’t know that I agree with all the language the judge used, but it sounds like it was the fault of this one teacher, not a failure of the system or school.
I only know about the case from what I got from skimming the article but did she sue anyone else? I think in a situation like this it would be normal to sue the district, the teacher and anyone else even remotely connected to it. Kind of a ‘throw it at the wall and see what sticks’ type situation. She (or the parents) might be hoping the the district will settle for a little bit of cash to make this go away. What would be funny is if the school said that this happened off campus so it’s not of their concern, however, they’re going to sue the family because they couldn’t control their minor daughter and now someone lost their job and they have to train a new teacher.
I don’t remember the movie that well, but the book actually focused more on the adult (Humbert) who happened to like boinking 14 year olds. It just took place during his relationship with Lolita, but there were girls before, during(IIRC) and (presumably) after her. I do recall that the movie was considerably less ‘dirty’ than the book though. The book was actually difficult to read.
The movie may have portrayed Lolita’s actions as quite a bit more voluntary than they were, but Humbert, lied to her to get her (told her that her mom died in a car accident) and drugged her to get her to submit the first time. It’s not that she saw him and said ‘damn, I’m gonna sleep with this guy some day’, it was literally exactly the opposite of that.
Seems like in some verions of this story, it was a jury, not a judge, that cleared the school district.
“The Los Angeles Unified School District claimed it was unaware of the relationship between the teacher and student and was cleared last year of wrongdoing by a civil jury in Los Angeles Superior Court.” link.
“The jury ultimately found in favor of the LAUSD, accepting the district’s argument that it had no knowledge of the relationship and could not be held liable, according to KPCC.” Link.
Exactly. A judge with these sentiments must in fact think the book is about a slutty girl who attracts a poor man, instead of a hebephile’s excuses while he ruined a young teen’s life.
And you don’t have to have not read the book to have this perspective. I definitely know people who have watched the movie and think that Dolores was a slut and it’s no wonder the poor man couldn’t help himself. The idea of the unreliable narrator is beyond them.
I’m also not sure how you guys think this is misleading. The lawyer did in fact argue in his case that this was the girl’s fault, and the judge agreed. I pointed out that this was not a legal but civil case. I even flat out said he had already been convicted.
The point is, according to the article, the judgement seems to rest on the idea that she was civilly culpable for something she couldn’t legally consent to. That’s fucking insane.
If that’s not it, and the judge was just speaking off the cuff, I still think it’s insane that such a judge is allowed to practice. And don’t get me started on the lawyer.
You want to say the school isn’t responsible? Fine. Then your only choice is that the convict is responsible. You cannot think the girl is responsible. Fuck that victim blaming.
I don’t understand this downplaying of the bad part. It’s not “a bit charged” that the judge was blaming the statutory rape victim. It’s not “a bit charged” that the school’s lawyer made the same point.
This isn’t a mere disagreement with what the judge said. The guy is a victim-blaming cuntrag, and should not be allowed anywhere near our legal system.
No you didn’t.
You did refer to the two sides being the school district and the girl. And maybe you felt like it was a safe assumption that anyone reading would immediately deduce- because it’s a case against the school district, not the teacher- that this was a civil trial not a criminal trial.
But you did not point out “that this was not a legal but civil case”.
Well, you didn’t say it flat out.
You said “Nevermind that the guy was already convicted of a crime”. Your choice of the indefinite article “a” makes it sound like you are referring to a prior offense by the teacher and that knowledge of this prior offense should make it obvious that he was the one entirely in the wrong.
If you had said “Nevermind that the guy was already convicted of the crime in question” or “Nevermind that the guy was already convicted of this crime” or even just “Nevermind that the guy was already convicted of the crime”, it would have read much more clearly.
Before composing an OP, take a moment to remind yourself that you are not a very good writer. Then take the time to make sure what you’ve written actually says what you meant to say.
Nowhere, nowhere in the article does it say that the judge agreed that this was the girl’s fault. The school district was found not to be liable for the crime- the crime was not a result of negligence or endangement on the part of the school district.
The attorney may have made some sleazy arguments, but are we really to assume that the judge was all ready to rule against the school district but then heard the attorney’s slut-shaming and thought to himself, “Hey, this guy’s got a point! This girl really is a big-time slut!”? Because the article you provided gives us absolutely no reason to assume that. If you’ve got another source that shows the judge had it in for the little harlot, please share a link.
Seriously, if you had just written an OP that said “Fuck this sleazeball attorney for bringing up a victim’s sexual history!” then I’m sure most of the responses would have been supportive.
Instead, you felt compelled to Pit a scenario that only ever existed in your own mind.
BigT your ire is totally misplaced. When it says “the judge ruled in favor of the district” it doesn’t mean “the judge agreed with the substance of the defense’s argument”, it means “the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof”. S/He was saying that the district is not culpable for what happened, not that everything the defense said is undeniably true.
