i think it's kind of funny that all these blogs "broke" the story when these stories were linked off the with leather blog on may 31st.

Bitch_PHD, it's really strange that just after you wrote an article saying how people should leave this girl alone, you write an article harassing her father for having the audacity to work as a defence attorney.

If you want to write a general piece on the ridiculous arguments that get accepted by juries in sex crime cases, then there are unfortunately so many examples of that you wouldn't need to mention this person and her family who have done nothing more than their jobs and have made it clear they don't like excessive negative attention.

I agree with you that some awful defences are accepted by judges and juries in certain cases. But conducting witch hunts for random defence attorneys isn't right. In those cases, the blame lies entirely with the judge and jury. If 'scumbags' didn't have defence attorneys that tried to argue in their favour, the entire justice system on which the US is based would fall apart.

this is a sad twist...
I'm not happy for the way Allison is being treated, she is a girl who deserves her privacy and in some way i would say she's a victim, but there's no doubt that Karma is a bitch who will kick you in the most painful way.

Nice usage of the word 'Huevos' by the way

That's actually not what I said. Surely you can read better than that.

I was just trying to be succinct. Really, what you're implying is that there's something wrong with men bonding over the ogling of an attractive woman. That's merely a facet of the fact that groups of people, men and women, bond over talking (positively and negatively, but mostly negatively) about people outside their own group ALL THE TIME. It's a prime feature of social interaction.

You don't think there's a difference between a bunch of guys talking about women around the poker table and a bunch of guys catcalling women as they walk down the street?

Clearly responding to rational arguments is not the order of the day; you seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Out of sheer curiosity, where do you think the internet falls on that spectrum?

This is kind of a valid point, but w/out the connection, the impact of the story would be lost. I'm not harassing anyone for being a DA--read the piece. I don't use anyone's name, I'm clearly articulating a larger point, and the larger point itself involves a connection between rape culture and "harmless" internet publicity--a connection that the particular illustration I'm using exemplifies remarkably well.

Er, he's named in your article. Technically in something you've pasted into your article, but it's certainly something you chose to include. And you also went out of your way to identify him, whether you wrote out his name or not. You move onto a larger point at the end of your article, but it starts like a "sins of the father being visited upon the daughter" kind of article, and your wording makes clear your opinion on his job and the way he chooses to do it. So there isn't much connection between your response to Jenni and what she actually had to say. Whether or not the ultimate point of the article was disconnected, it is clearly very personal as well; a significant portion of it is devoted to your censure of what the man does for a living.

It isn't alright to damage the reputation of innocent people just to give your story more impact.

That's a lie. His name is mentioned four times in the piece you posted.

You chose someone whose daughter was bullied over the internet, and decided to bully him over the internet for working as a defence attorney. The only connection that illustrated to me was that people love saying unwarranted and unpleasant things about this family to serve their own agenda.

The issue of the way judges and juries react to sex crime cases, and the general culture of misogyny in society, is so powerful there's honestly no need to bring yet more negative attention to an innocent family who are trying to assert their right to privacy.

If this person had done anything wrong, I wouldn't mind you criticising him. But he did what he was obligated to do as a defence attorney. The position of a defence lawyer is not to pass a judgement on whether their client is innocent or guilty - it's to defend them in the strongest way possible. If the
defence attorney asserts an obviously outlandish argument, it's the position of the lawyer for the prosecution to prove this argument to be a fallacy. It is then up to the judge and jury to weigh the arguments and reach a decision. Someone does need to be held to account for the judgements made in these cases - but that 'someone' is the judge and jury. Defence attorneys hold no authority in a court of law and are not legally allowed to make judgements on cases, and consequently they cannot be blamed for the decision a court reaches as they had no say in it.

I did used to think that when I was a lawyer I wouldn't want to defend the guilty people. But then I realised that if no-one defended them, then anyone 'suspected' of being a scumbag would be thrown in jail without trial.

Defence attorneys, like Al Stokke, are neccessary to preserve the integrity of the legal system. But so are judges and juries that are capable of spotting outlandishly silly arguments - and it sounds like there is a deficit of them. That is what you should draw attention to. 'Judge ignores weight of evidence and decides to free rapist' makes a much better headline than 'Defence attorney defends his client'.

What does that second one have to do with this conversation?

Yes you do.

hmm I thought the story was about the girl's rights- she is not responsible for her father's actions or profession. I feel for her, as she seems genuinely offended by this. I could give a rip about her father.

I'm trying to learn from you. Is this what you mean by the term "rape culture"? I've never really had the concept explained to me.

Move to Cuyahoga County in Ohio.

They just passed legislation here that basically states "Unless you are on fire, you are not getting out of jury duty"

They now offer daycare for single parents, they're in the process of making the waiting room for jurors offer wireless communications so businessmen can't even get out of it. They've also passed stricter rules for employers calling to get employees out of it.

When i went in for jury duty i sat down next to a guy and was talking to him. I was kind of complaining about being there. He turned, looked at me and said "How do you think i feel, i am a judge"

He couldn't technically serve on any juries because of his vast knowledge of local lawyers and no lawyer wanted him on a jury, but he still had to show up for the seven days.