Greatings to the SDMB’s own X-man [woman?], margin. My sincere apologies for my initial reluctance to accept your abilities. I was intimidated by your powers, but I will make every attempt to accept you and whatever mutants might follow you to the SDMB.
You see, everyone, margin has the unique ability to divine the true meaning from any short word or phrase. While mere mortals like me are forced to read and interpret a mere assemblage of words, margin can peer beyond the words into the very soul of the writer. Marvel[sup]®[/sup] at this:
I see now that this is truly amazing. I’m ashamed to admit I was incredulous at first. Perhaps even accusatory.
Bricker! How could you not say such things?! You would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for margin.
[sub]Margin of Error - the Extra Sensory Inter-jaculator™ is the property of Novel Comics®. Watch for the arrival of Participle Pete the Word Parser™, coming to a the forums this fall![/sub]
Slow down just a little there, margin. You have to understand my mind doesn’t work as fast as yours, and I’m limited to understanding only what is written.
I don’t recall weighing in the lying debate. Did you divine something I might have been thinking while I accused you of mischaracterizing the post I quoted above? Because if I encoded some secret meaning that even I’m unaware of, I really must apologize for it.
This is about lying vs. bad research? My reading skills must be even more primitive than I thought. I really, really thought I had called you out for unfairly twisting someone’s meaning. Twice. Please tell me what I really said, and if you have time let me know if I think you are a liar just a loon, and whether my best fall color is hunter green or burgundy. Thanks!
If you didn’t pay attention to the lying debate, you should have, because that in large part influenced this. But, hey, go ahead.
So…let me get this straight. When it takes me a long time to verify a twelve-year-old statement, it’s acceptable to call me a liar instead of a slow researcher.
Are you going to actually read anything, or are you just going to keep this mind-reader shtick going? Because it’s all you’ve got. It doesn’t look half bad if you ignore all the rest.
“I’m sorry, but that’s how it is.” You know, I have to try this statement out in real life, and use it in connection with various forms of institutionalized prejudice. It’ll sound so good in reference to racism and anti-Semitism. Oh, wait, those are important.
Oh, obviously, I'm a loon, because I find it offensive when a former defense liar accuses me of being a lawyer, but doesn't think it's offensive in the slightest to call a rape victim a cum dumpster. I especially liked the way he used my post to impugn my character---but not thinksnow's. Oh, wait, I know. That's not relevant, because you don't think it is. Right, I forgot. Carry on.
And here’s my prediction. You and your little friends will flame me—real good way of ignoring what I was trying to say----and congratulate each other. Nobody will have the balls to answer my question as to why it’s okay for Bricker to accuse someone of lying so casually—and without attracting a peep of attention from such supposedly logical, impartial posters. At the conclusion, I will be branded as a hysterical feminazi who sees shadows everywhere, and really just needs to get laid.
margin, would you humor me for just a moment and explain how the following requires prior admission that you were wrongly called a liar:
[Bricker states that “unfortunately, jurors like to see good victims…”] -> [margin states that there is “something kind of creepy about your shrugging off of sexism in the quote”] -> [Waverly asks how margin knows this is evident of sexism and isn’t a frank explanation of jury bias] -> [margin further explains how odious Bricker’s sexism is and dodges the question]
And margin continues to dodge the question, bringing up perceived past wrongs, other threads, other posters, and the perplexing insistence that I’m somehow party to the accusations of lying being leveled against margin.
I’m an only going to ask one single question in this thread (though I have many) to help you concentrate. Here it is. Ready?
How do you know, from the quote you took such offense to, that Bricker shrugs of or otherwise endorses sexism?
Twice when I have asked this question you re-quoted a smaller piece and spouted off again, so don’t tell me it is intimately tied to accusations of lying unless you are also admitting that you took a pot shot because of a prior disagreement. In fact, let’s not mention lying in the next thread, huh? It has nothing to do with my question for you.
The idiocy of margin’s interpretation of my comments in the Kobe Bryant thread is sufficiently documented, and needs no further illumination from me.
As to the characterization of margin as a liar in the juror thread… if margin had returned to the thread and confessed that she was unable to find supporting cites, and was withdrawing her claim pending location of those cites, I’d be happy with the “good faith, but inadequate researcher” characterization. Making the claim and then vanishing for months in the thread after being pressed for a cite is not evidence of good faith. It’s evidence of bad faith.
margin, not only are you a liar, you’re a psycho nutjob.
I am curious, in the context of this back and forth in the referenced thread, when Bricker was addressing, in a somewhat arms length analytical fashion, the real world operational details of how juries make decisions, how specifically could he have framed his discussion to avoid the “creepy sexism” that this finger pointing by Margin is all about.
Here’s Bricker’s statement
Here’s Margin’s essential complaint about Brickers post that you are attaching your support to.
Does Bricker have to load in a moral critique of the current system’s failings in addressing a practical point regarding how the jury system works, before he’s “not a sexist”? Margin’s characterization of Bricker’s point is blitheringly insane. I mean literally infuckingsane. How can you support this nonsense?
I can support it because Bricker seems to think it’s an insurmountable obstacle. Like there’s no possible way the prosecutors could spin the situation in their favor. No, anyone other than a Sunday School teacher is a fallen woman, and that’s the way it is and always will be. He’s just too accepting of this.
I feel for the alleged victim. I really do. I don’t have enough information to make a determination of guilt or innocence, but this is a terrible position for her to be in. The defense is going to capitalize on every opportunity to vilify her – even if that vilification is playing to known jury biases outside of the written law. If I were selecting a lawyer for the girl, I’d damn well want one that understood this defense strategy.
The problem is, the Good Victim is one half of the double standard. The other half is the Bad Victim. The bad girl/good girl combo. There’s no other options for women under the double standard. Not mediocre, not halfway decent, nothing but good and bad. And the bad end of it is really bad; evil. What this theory basically says is that there’ some women it’s okay to rape—or at least, not bad or anything, as long as the guy is a Nice Boy. There’s all kinds of excuses for Nice Boys.
A Good Girl is sexually pure and decent, and well, never human. She’s perfect. Problem is, nobody’s perfect, although Bricker certainly seems to think he is. But this is the standard by which rape victims get judged.
“I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is.”
This is just shrugging this off. It’s indifferent. I’m sorry, I know I’m naive compared to the great and wonderful Bricker, but I do think that the perpetuation of the double standard is a terrible thing. I’m not saying he does this, but I do think the double standard poisons discussions about rape and rape trials without ever having its existance acknowledged. It’s very popular to brush it off and say, “Oh, that is over with. It doesn’t happen any more.” Bricker himself said as much earlier.
But color me confused if this statement, by citing the example of the Good Half of the double standard does exactly that. Is sexism gone and done with, or is it immutable and constant?
Given your definition of the truth, Bricker, this just doesn’t have quite the sting you might imagine. I haven’t withdrawn my claim. I’ll research the fucking thing till I talk to every writer myself. I’ve already spoken with both Lynn Hecht Schafran and her assistant myself. I’ll search out every author on my damned list.
I’m sorry I vanished for months—well, I’m not really, but that’s none of your business, even though I guess my schedule does revolved all around you----but you need to get over yourself.
There have been four published accounts of Lea Haller’s remarks in the press. Four. She’s married to Roy Black. I find it really hard to believe that were they libelous, he would not have sued already.
Well, there’s this, too.
I’m frankly puzzled as to a definition of the truth that appears to change with every situation. I’m not being sarcastic, but I’m not a lawyer, and I frankly don’t care that the ‘canon of ethics’ permits you to get juries to buy that a truth-telling victim or witness is lying. If it does permit such lapses, I really don’t care. I’m a layman; I’m not bound by esoteric legal rules for legal lying. It seems really conveniant, and really flexible.
I’m sorry that my post left you with that impression - especially the “always will be” porion, which I honestly cannot see as having even been implied, much less actually stated.
But perhaps there’s some value in my simply clarifying my position, so that you, or any readers, do not have to extrapolate, but can read the definitive word on how I view these issues.
I’m all in favor of a system of justice in which an accused criminal has a zealous advocate. But that zealous advocacy must be within the bounds of the law.
The legislatures of every single state have said, to one degree or another, that a victim’s past sexual history is irrelevant when considering sexual assault. Even a zealous advocate must remain inside the bounds of that law; when a defense lawyer flouts that law in an effort to win, I’m against that.
I’m against it because I agree with the proposition that, in general, past sexual history is not probative of anything in particular. When a defense lawyer offers up that sort of evidence, what he or she is doing is arguing for jury nullification - saying to the jury that because you don’t approve of the victim’s lifestyle, you should excuse her attacker. It’s in spirit no different than the 1960s-era approach of selecting all-white juries to judge white defendants accused of violence against blacks, confident that the all-white jury will do the “right thing” and not convict.
It’s a repugnant practice.
However, it’s an undeniable one as well – that is, while the ability of defense lawyers to reject jurors based on race has been sharply curtailed, and society has grown to generally reject invidious racial divisions, there are large segments of society that have not accepted the same sorts of sea changes regarding sexual assault. “Blame the victim” is limited by law, but alive in fact. Many older jurors, both men and women, will have a “she-went-to-his-hotel-room-so-she-knew-what-was-coming” attitude. We can acknowledge that these attitudes are wrong; we cannot deny their pervasive existence.
There are plenty of ways, Rilchiam, for the prosecution to mitigate this problem. Sadly, unfortunately, and without my personal approval, one of the most effective is for the prosecution to simply buy into the mindset – if at all possible, cast your victim as a Good Victim. Show that she fought, show that she was made to submit by violence, and minimize or eliminate any evidence that would tarnish her overall reputation.
The prosecution will only abandon that strategy if it is untenable. They will NOT abandon it to make the political point that such thinking is outdated; they will not abandon it to make the legal point that past sexual history is legally irrelevant. If they can cast the vicitim as a Good Victim, they will, because that is the most effective way to win the jury: it won’t matter to reasonable jurors one way or the other, and it will allow unreasonable jurors to focus on the evidence and not the character or behavior of the victim.
Of course, the prosecution has tools available to screen the jury. The voir dire process allows the prosecution to ask prospective jurors questions like, “If a woman willingly kisses a married man in his hotel room, should she have the right to say no and stop the escalating activity at any point?” And the prosecution can excuse a limited number of jurors for almost any reason they like.
But so can the defense. And just as the prosecution is using these tools to winnow out remnants of an earlier age of sexual assualt thinking, the defense will be using them to identify and keep such remnants. Without my personal approval or support, mind you. I expect that as time goes on, people holding these sorts of views will become a shrinking minority. At present, they are numerous enough that getting enough to hang a jury, if not serve up an acquittal, is not unheard of. *I don’t like this state of affairs. * I report it here as the result of several years spent dealing in it.
I hope this message is helpful as both a clarification of my personal views, my vision for the future, and my take on the current state of affairs in our judicial system.
That’s a masterful summary of the issue. There are Bad Victims in this way of thinking. Sometimes simply not fighting back hard enough can make a Bad Victim. Never mind that the attacker had a knife, never mind that the attacker credibly threatened to kill the victim, never mind that there were three of them. Some juries want to hear that there was blood and bruises and critical injuries.
At the other end of the scale are the Really Bad Victims - prostitutes, according to this model, cannot be raped; it was probably just a business dispute.
I don’t know what to tell you, margin, except that it doesn’t happen as much now as it did thirty years ago, but it still happens. Society has made great strides on the legal front: it’s hard to see what kinds of additional laws could be passed to solve this problem. The problem now lies mainly in attitudes of the jury pool.
None of the above.
It’s alive, prevalent, and a factor to be considered in any meaningful discussion of a rape trial. But it’s much better than it was years ago, and I have every reaosn to believe the trend is continuing to move in a positive direction.
You accused a juror of leading other jurors in a discussion of prejudicial, irrelevant, inadmissible information in order to gain the desired verdict. You let me know when you get the info that proves it. For the moment, yours is a gratuitous claim, and may be equally gratuitously denied.
I’m not sorry you vanished for months. I am sorry that, both before and after you returned, you didn’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that your claim was then and remained still unsupported by any citation.
A lawyer acts as a vigorous advocate for his client. That’s the way the system works. I’m sorry that you can’t understand that concept. But to suggest that I personally lack integrity because as a lawyer I would argue to a jury that they should infer something that, as an individual, I would reject… well, it simply shows you don’t have the slightest comprehension of how the system is set up to work – which, in fairness, you already acknowledge.
And since you place great stock in my failure to condemn a comment, and seemingly infer my support of it from the mere failure to condemn… that’s whack, lady. But to eliminate that distraction: I found the “cum dumpster” comment to be wholly inappropriate and without merit.
That’s nice, Bricker, really it is. I’m just getting a little too much of a memory of somebody else…
“I did not have sex with that woman!”
“I didn’t inhale.”
Sorry, but you’ll have to excuse my skepticism, at least until the liar remark is dealt with. It seems you whip this stuff out whenever the situation calls for it. One minute, it’s 'sexism-is-a-thing-of-the-past". The next minute, it’s your “*I’m-sorry-but-that’s-just-the-way-is”*dismissal. Now it’s this effusive—and after the fact----explanation of how you really, surely, completely did not inhale. Er, intend to be give that mistaken impression at all. What, are you running for office somewhere? Calling me a psycho nutjob just says more about you than you could possibly realize. Nice explanation, though. Honest. I’m sure my skepticism will cause dear Waverly to launch another attack of his Psychic Friends schtick, but that’s his problem. It’s sad that he ran out of tinfoil, though.
My, my, there’s that patronization again. I understand it just fine. Lawyers will vigorously defend their clients even if they have to do things that the layperson would find immoral----like trying to get a jury to believe an untruth.
Of course, there’s the concept of compartmentalization, too. Different morals for different situations. Yeah, I understand all right. What I don’t do is agree with it.
I’m not sure if there’s any way to debate the ‘ethics’ of a legal system that permits that, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. The legal system is long overdue for an overhaul.
So you do things as a lawyer you wouldn't do as an individual? Kind of what I was getting at, but thanks for stating it. The system works in a particular way, and there are quite a lot of people now trying to change that system so that it's not set up in the adversarial mode, which values victory over justice. While on the one hand, you could argue that you should not be judged by the standards of a different culture--which is what happens when a layperson looks at a lawyer and says, "He's a LIAR!"----on the other hand, one could also argue that the legal system is simply flawed, and needs to adopt a different mode that ensures justice. What we've got now is a system that rewards whoever has the best, or the most aggressive lawyer.
You accused a juror of leading other jurors in a discussion of prejudicial, irrelevant, inadmissible information in order to gain the desired verdict. You let me know when you get the info that proves it. For the moment, yours is a gratuitous claim, and may be equally gratuitously deniedp/quote]
Yeah, and I pointed out Lea Haller’s statements appeared or were paraphrased in at least four published accounts, none of which she has ever contested. Nor has her husband, Roy Black. As you yourself say, that’s a serious charge. Where’s the lawsuit?
Yawn. Yeah, sure. You were so aggrieved that you commented on my morals, not thinksnow’s.
“I did NOT have sex with that woman.” God, the mindset just sounds so…familiar somehow.