Lawyer Says 11-Year-Old Gang Rape Victim Was a ‘Spider’

Cyberwulf wrote:

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf, is it possible that this defense is purely and completely the position of the lawyer's client and not the lawyer him/herself? I mean, come on. Do we even know what conversations happened between the lawyer and his client? It is entirely possible that the lawyer strongly advised the guy to plead guilty, but said rapist was insistent that he wasn't for reasons that only his fucked up mind could comprehend.

This case is as reason to be angry as any out there, but remember that everyone in the United States of America is granted the right to a legal defense. Everyone. Not just the innocent people.

Well then we're right back to my last post up there, which you seem to have ignored. I'll restate it using a different crime. What kind of lawyer would mount this as a legal defence:

"Your Honour, the victim was standing across the room giving my client the finger. This provoked my client into such a rage that he couldn't control himself and assaulted the victim, unfortunately causing fatal injuries. Therefore my client is not guilty and the victim is responsible for his own death."

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this but people do, in fact, use that as a defense for murder (or try to). It generally doesn't work for them, and it is not going to work for this case.

Chris91 wrote:

Fuck that guy and the law degree he rode in on.

Just for THINKING something like he deserves to be permanently disbarred.

Unless he was drugged, certifiably mentally ill or lying, they can't do that. That's because the standards for lawyers are set by lawyers themselves.