|
Kinda hosed up that they made those arguments, but the idea that the school itself should be held liable for that guys actions is kinda dumb.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:By what logic is "she wanted it" a legal defense for breaking the law, anyway? Even if she did, it'd at best be a mitigating circumstance. The school didn't break any laws, though. The rapist did, and is going to jail. They aren't defending against charges that they broke the law, they're defending against the accusation that they're responsible for it. If they have to use bullshit arguments to fend off a bullshit accusation, I'm kind of ok with it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Apthous posted:The article talks about the offense taken at the reasons used by the school's lawyers to defend themselves in civil court which basically amount to "the victim is a good for nothing slut". When people talk about sexual abuse victims being re-abused by the courts this is exactly what they are talking about. I can understand maybe using the "good for nothing slut" defense when you are talking about someone who is of age, but this poor girl was 14. If these arguments were being made in the criminal trial against the rapist, I'd agree. The claim that the school is responsible for the rape is just as full of poo poo as the claim that she was asking for it. Maybe in the future she'll think twice before filing another frivolous lawsuit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:this isn't a criminal suit against the school That post was response to someone who seemed to think it was, so we're in agreement?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Apthous posted:I don't think it is appropriate in any court, civil or criminal, to suggest a 14 year old's sexual history lets the accused off the hook. This is not glorious Nippon where the 14 year old flow like wine and are all fully emotionally developed adults, this is the real world. Who is being let off what hook here, I honestly don't understand. The person who broke the law went to jail.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:What they did wasn't really right, but they basically used slander as self defense against slander, so it's hard to blame them. This is basically my point, more eloquently stated.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Apthous posted:I don't think it is appropriate for a school system to use that type of legal defense in this situation. It would be inappropriate for an individual to use that type of defense, and it is severely inappropriate for a school system to use that type of defense in this situation. They hired a law firm to defend them, whose job it is to do everything in their power to win the case. If appeals to the victim's sluttiness comprise an effective legal defense, I see no reason why they shouldn't use it. It's not really their fault that society at large finds those arguments compelling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:The school system's lawyer came up with the defense. The lawyer has to do what he can to get his client off the hook. This is why people generally hate lawyers. Hth Also, this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:It's not, because her willingness still doesn't matter at any point. The act is illegal, how anyone involved felt about it is immaterial. If the school knew about it or had suspicions and didn't do anything, they were covering for a rapist, because that's what the law says he is. Their defense is to "argue she bore some of the responsibility" because of her sexual history, as if responsibility was what mattered there, not that they had no way of knowing because she covered on her own end, too. That really says everything you need to know. Didn't you gently caress some married dude when you were 15 and vehemently defend the whole thing as fundamentally acceptable because you wanted it? Lol
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 18:43
|
|