some of the arguments that defense attorneys use to defend rapists
i want you guys to stay informed. here are some of the arguments that i edited for a defense attorney who specialized in defending men accused of sexual assault, rape and domestic violence
- these cases work in a peculiar way — the jury won’t be swayed if the lawyer seems to be attacking a victim (especially female). so the defense plays up how smart and well-balanced the woman seems and how helpless and naive the guy is. if you’re cross-examining a woman and ask her nicely about a string of achievements — “you graduated summa cum laude from an ivy league school, correct?” “you started your own business, correct?” “you are in charge of over 40 people at your company, correct?” “if one of your employees behaved inappropriately, you would have no problem reprimanding or firing them, correct?” “a smart woman isn’t likely to stay with a man who beats her every night, right? does that sound right to you?” — the jury ends up having sympathy for her, but believing that she’s too smart (or pretty or accomplished or whatever vein the attorney picks) to let bad things happen to her
- when he cross-examines his own clients he emphasizes that they’re either too morally sound or too confused, “it was just a mistake,” so that sometimes you can admit that there was an altercation but (you tell the jury, shaking your head) you can’t call it rape because that’s too strong
- “victim pretended to be unconscious following alleged rape to avoid answering friend’s questions” - that’s a section heading for a case summary
- “friend did not initially believe explanation” - that’s the heading of the next section. in this particular case, the attorney cross-examined the victim’s friends and got them to admit that she was just a dramatic person, or flustered, pointing to signs that she either lied about this case or chronically lies/exaggerates
- “victim had time to consider her circumstances before accusing client of rape” - she took until the next day to go to the police station, soooo
- point out all the different ways she could have resisted or every possible sign of resistance that wasn’t there — the prosecution will focus on the few signs they have, but the defense can be really smarmy here and list every single way she did not resist
- if the woman was drunk, and the prosecution says she was unable to consent because she was drunk, the defense can call in experts on alcohol absorption and grill them until they admit that there’s a margin of error (“Since it was our contention that the alleged victim had exaggerated her level of intoxication to attract attention, and was not, therefore, too intoxicated to consent to sexual relations, the main goal of this cross-examination is to undermine the credibility of the chemist’s retrograde extrapolation calculations.” that’s a quote from a book i edited)
- and of course the good ol focusing on her sexual history, any flaws she could have, emphasize that these are human flaws and that nobody in this case deserves any punishment
these are very convincing arguments to juries
and that’s why we hesitate to report our sexual assaults and rapes, because “it’s not that big of a deal,” because there’s no way we could “let” that happen to us; because once we get to the police station they ask “what took you so long” and “how could you let that happen to you”; because when you get to the courtroom you’re subjected to this; and the time and the money and “i just want this to be over.” and then…the jury is so easily convinced. they say 1 in 4 women has been sexually assaulted, but i really think it’s more, and i don’t even want to know how many sexual assaults and rapes have happened with absolutely no mention — or even recognition — of them happening — from either party
