Defence lawyer asks sex assault complainant why she didn't clench her legs together
 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...orka-1.4713403

Where do these people come from that still hold these outrageous, outdated ideas that knees prevent sexual assault?
:confused:
:mad:

You know the knee thing could work... for maybe a minute. Those muscles are easily tired.

Not to mention it's those (often weak) muscles against stronger, more utilized arm muscles. Not to mention is those muscles of a woman against the muscles of a man. Not to mention this was the woman's FATHER who she lived with and had other access to her when she was less able (or perhaps more tired) of pressing her knees together.

*insert all the eyeroll emoji*

Who needs locks on doors or chastity belts when you've got knees?

We should put knees on bank vaults, that would prevent 100% of bank robberies! "I'm sorry, sir, the vault's knees are closed, I cannot enter to withdraw the money you're asking for"

:rolleyes:

Often it seems the point of this "argument" is to suggest the victim must have wanted the sexual act or else they would have tried harder to prevent it. Suggesting that this girl felt that way about a sexual act with her father gives the statement another layer of vileness.

Its a silly argument as you allude to, but I got to wonder why a defense lawyer would bother with it. No judge in his right mind would accept such an argument. I suppose though that a sexist male jury member might still believe in it.

Really though, this defense should be tossed in the ash heap of bad arguments that should result in your being laughed out of court.

Too many people still believe that kind of crap, unfortunately. It's not a "real" rape unless it meets a bunch of criteria that almost never happen: until then, she was just asking for, wasn't her fault, he was a man who can't be expected to help himself, and so on.

He was her father, so expecting him to restrain himself should have been the lowest of expectations...

Luckily, the judge roundly slapped this question down.

I was just shotgunning the usual apologia that comes up any time a man is accused of rape.

Yea. It's really sad that things are that way.

Because people on the jury will still remember it, judge instructions to the contrary. All you need to do is introduce reasonable doubt in one member of the jury. And if it makes her less likely to continue the trial or commit to a second trial, that's good too.

It may also make another victim think twice before going to the police. If you're going to end up crucified in addition to having your life ruined, why bother?

Seaboe

That is very likely to be a side-effect, but I don't think a defense attorney makes decisions based on how it may affect future, unrelated accusers.

And why is there no outrage over the gender of the person making the statement? I can't believe I'm the first person to notice that a WOMAN is the source of this antiquated sexist drivel.

Now, I'm sure if a man had said something similar, there would be nothing but howls of outrage about the "Neanderthal" or "caveman" mentality coming from the guy; in fact, we've seen plenty of cases in the past couple of years where men (including judges) have made similarly stupid sexist comments and they've been raked over the proverbial coals (the judges routinely faced cries of "impeach the bastard") but a "mere" woman says something like this, and apparently it gets a pass.

You mean other than the outrage from everyone posting in this thread and the condemnation from the judge overseeing the trial?

The statement is outrageous no matter what the gender is of the person who makes it.

Are you surprised that there are women who believe this sort of nonsense? Of course there are. There are plenty of people -- of all genders -- who want to believe that they, personally, could never be raped -- and who therefore want to believe that there are surefire and easy ways to prevent it. (Although whether Przepiorka actually believes it, or only believes the argument will either cause the jury to disbelieve the accuser or will rattle the accuser to the point at which the rest of her testimony sounds defensive and/or confused, I have no idea.)

Or do you just think that we should somehow think the statement is even worse coming from a woman than from a man? Why would it be?