After we posted a link to the story about Alison Stokke, the high-school track athlete who has been unwillingly turned into an internet sex object, sharp-eyed reader Evan emailed with the observation that Stokke's father is the same guy who earlier this year defended a cop who jerked off on a stripper during a routine traffic stop. “She got what she wanted,� Al Stokke said, of the stripper. “She’s an overtly sexual person.�
The hits they keep on comin'. Stokke also defended a sheriff's son who was convicted of participating in a videotaped gang-rape. From the OC Weekly's account of the sentencing hearing:
The defense niceties vanished immediately. Defense lawyer Al Stokke, who replaced lead trial attorney Joseph G. Cavallo, questioned any link between the rape and the victim's claim of mental anguish. Stokke also mocked the girl's physical injuries, finally conceding she was unconscious but then trying to use that against her. "There's [no pain] that is felt," he said, "because she was unconscious."
Wow. To be perfectly clear, this is NOT to say that Alison Stokke has been in ANY WAY deserving of the harassment that has been heaped upon her for simply participating in a high-school track meet. But it's noteworthy that her father, who is understandably deeply concerned for his daughter's safety, has defended several men who have done things far more reprehensible than link to or post photos on the internet without permission.
Her father, Allan Stokke, comes home from his job as a lawyer and searches the Internet. He reads message boards and tries to pick out potential stalkers."We're keeping a watchful eye," Allan Stokke said. "We have to be smart and deal with it the best we can. It's not something that you can just make go away."
In other words, it's his daughter, and of course he's doing all he can to ensure she's safe now that her photo is plastered all over the internet in a sexual context. But he seemed to not only lack concern but to show outright disdain for the woman who was sexually assaulted by a traffic cop and for the girl who was gang-raped. From his previous comments, he seems to desire a world in which reprehensible treatment of women (sexual assault, harassment, rape) is a-OK. But maybe, just maybe, his views will change now that he is forced to consider the fact that his own flesh and blood -- his wife, his sister, his mother, his daughter -- could be a victim of that violence.
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: It's OK when it's someone else's daughter.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5378
"Cameras aren't new, maps aren't new, the internet isn't new, nor is Google or Microsoft. So why does this feel so freshly creepy to so many?" It reminds me of the Alisson Stokke pretty pole vaulter story. There's nothing particularly new in that cas... Read More
Wow. What an asshole. It sounds like someone should take naked pictures of him and post them on the Internet. Not that anyone would ever want to fuck such a big asshole.
Sometimes it takes something personal to get people to awaken to a single ounce of their humanity. I'm sorry that this has happened to his daughter (what a shitty thing), but I can only hope that out of this he will learn a valuable lesson and change for the better.
Or he could just walk away feeling as though his daughter was attacked unjustly when there are so many "sluts" out there who could have been attacked instead. But here's to hoping.
Is it too much to hope that he'll know that, should he be able to sue anyone who does (or will do) anything to his daughter, that the same defenses that he's used for years will be used to deny her justice?
If only the remorse he feels now for his behavior, ( considering that he would feel some remorse for his behavior) could wash away the uncontrollable damage his words have caused in the past.
How can people make such sexisrt, insensitive comments?
My first thought was, "Is this really the same guy?" But given the likelihood that there would be two lawyers named Allan Stokke in the same area, it must be.
I agree with you, Cara, and hope that he learns from this, but I'm not holding my breath.
When it happens to his daughter, it is a violation.
When something far worse happens to someone else's daughter, it's just a little something on the sweater that needs wiped off.
What a piece of shit!
I don't think this will change his mind about anything.
After all, women are slutty and are asking for it, except for his poor daughter (she doesn't deserve this though, no matter how big of a creep her dad is), and probably his wife (although that can always change),mother and other female relatives that haven't forgotten to send a christmas card.
It'd be nice if that happened in this case, but even if it does, I have no sympathy for people like that. People who can't imagine what it's like to be in another person's shoes, and then all of a sudden THEIR shoes are another person's shoes and *poof!* all of a sudden that particular issue matters.
Maybe I've got a different take on this, but... if you're a lawyer, it is your job to defend your client, and that everyone is deserving of legal representation is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. My parents have both defended people who have murdered other people, and if I get killed, I hope no one says "hey, gosh, isn't that ironic...maybe they'll know better from now on."
Now, the rhetoric Stokke used is definitely gross, and I hope that's all you are responding do, not the fact that he took these cases.
That poor sweetheart. She sounds like an amazing athlete and good kid. I may be making a big jump here, but this section of the WaPo article stood out to me when I read it a 2nd time knowing her Pop's track record:
"Allan Stokke, a defense attorney, studied California's statutes so he would know if he saw or read anything about his daughter that went beyond distasteful to illegal.
"Even if none of it is illegal, it just all feels really demeaning," Allison Stokke said."
My guess is she's not getting tons of support from Dad when the microphones aren't on; probably more along the lines of 'Boys will be boys, honey, besides none of this is against the law so suck it up.'
What lizard23 said...the only thing we know about the world Stokke desires is that it includes the right to legal defense, which is fine by me.
the only thing we know about the world Stokke desires is that it includes the right to legal defense, which is fine by me.
Just so we're clear, you assert that being a defense lawyer gives one the license to say anything without ever having to answer for it, right?
if you're a lawyer, it is your job to defend your client
I could give a fuck. Find a way to refuse to dehumanize and re-victimize a girl who has already been violated beyond belief. Turn down the case. Get a new job. FIND A WAY. If you can't, you're scum.
(Poor Alison Stokke. Not only does she have to deal with an internet full of asshats, but she has that for a father.)
Yes, lizard23, an attorney's job is to represent a client charged with a criminal offense. It's an attorney's job to challenge the state's case and present a defense. Most defenses run along the lines of "I wasn't there," "It wasn't me", "It was an accident," "I was only defending myself," or "It wasn't rape, she consented."
But a defense is not to convince the jury (who, let us not forget, bears the blame here) that the victim "deserved" to be violated.
I find it highly unethical to defend your client by saying "The victim is a piece of shit and it's her fault my client did a bad thing."
There's a line, and this guy crossed it.
That's actually the kind of weird karmic coincidence I wouldn't believe existed if it wasn't happening in real life.
Except yeah, I don't know why the universe would make a man's daughter pay for his sins...except that karma does that sometimes.
Poor girl, stuck with a shitty dad.
And the job of the defense isn't necessarily to get their client off the hook at any cost, it's to ensure that the state & prosecution obey the law. Karma's a bitch.
It's definitely the rhetoric that makes a difference, lizard23. I work in a firm that does mostly (corporate) defense work and there's a huge premium placed on being a zealous advocate *within the bounds of ethics and personal conscience.* We make a point of not bringing in irrelevant smear tactics, because we believe that we should win on the merits. Our clients value that approach.
Everyone, including accused rapists and murderers, deserves a fair trial and a competent defense. But like scootermom said, there's a difference between making the prosecution prove that yoru client actually committed a crime versus using horrible misogynist rhetoric to convince a jury that the victim invited/deserved to be victimized. That's a distraction from the real issues at hand, not to mention a despicable rpactice generally.
He's a defense lawyer for chrissakes.
His job is not to find some sort of objective "truth." His job is to present the best possible case for his client. For a rape, that generally means presenting things as consensual.
This is an adversarial system, not a polite one. Lawyers aren't up against polite prosecutors, polite cops, polite accusers. And the penalty for failure is pretty big.
EVERYONE in the courtroom is doing their best to win. A rape prosecutor is trying to paint the accused as the scum of the earth, and the accuser as an innocent. In civil cases, the parties are trying to do everything possible to make each other look bad.
That said, I don't--and wouldn't--do rape defense, because I'm not personally interested in going there. Neither would I particularly enjoy defending Nazi's rights to free speech, or defending people who appear to have serially killed multiple victims.
But I think that vigorous defenses of those defendants are necessary. And his rhetoric is similarly necessary because it is part and parcel of a vigorous defense.
Sigh. I live in Orange County (Irvine, to be exact - the same city who's cop assaulted the stripper) and, needless to say, I followed both that case and the Greg Haidl (date rape video) case very closely. I read about Allison Stokke's horrible ordeal a week or so ago, and I KNEW that last name sounded familiar. Crap, now I know why. Her dad is a certified piece of shit.
People like him are why I'm moving to New York in a week.
Sandinista-I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were accused of a crime. A zealous defense in the role of a defense attorney.
I think that it is indeed a good thing that this father can now see firsthand the flip side of the arguements he has used in his job, but I cannot fault him for fighting for his clients, no matter how scummy they are.
Would you feel the same way if it was a female defense attorney saying the same things this guy did?
Seriously, it turns my stomach to say this, especially in the second case because the defendants were so clearly guilty, but this is what zealous defense means. It doesn't mean you stop countering the prosecution because they make a solid argument - that's the one you try to poke holes in. It's up to the prosecution to make their case, it's up to the defense to shatter the defense's case within the bounds of the law. It's not just to patrol the prosecution and make sure they obey the rules, it's to use whatever legal leverage you have to defend your client. The fact that he didn't allow the kids to take the stand pretty much indicates that he knew they would perjure themselves or admit guilt if they did, which at least indicates that he was ethical in his defense.
This whole Allison Stokes incident is part and parcel of living in the age of the internet. The leers are moving from the street to the discussion boards(alright, they are still on the street as well, but now they have another venue).
But do we want to start limiting speech, no matter how disqusting, on the net? Who will be the arbiter? Do you want the same governemnt that wants to limit reporductive rights deciding on what can and can't be done online?
Karma is a wonderful thing, and it seems like this young woman's father just got a big fat dose of it. But privacy is a lie we convince ourselves of in this country. Pictures will be taken of all of us with or without our permission, and the way those pictures are viewed and discussed are out of our control.
lordie, my spelling is horrible...my apologies
Karma is a wonderful thing, and it seems like this young woman's father just got a big fat dose of it.
Karma doesn't exist. If it did, and if this were karma, "this young woman's father" didn't get any of it. Him getting karmic payback would involve him being gang-raped and then publicly mocked.
It is his daughter who is being harrassed. Girls are not appendages of their fathers. They are separate human beings in their own right.
Harrassment isn't protected speech in real life; why should it be protected on the internet?
"She was unconscious so she wasn't really hurt" and "her mental anguish has nothing to do with the rape" aren't "vigorous defenses"; they're unethical bullshit. Really, that's your defense? "She was unconscious so it couldn't really have hurt"? Pathetic.
For everyone who has pointed out that a vigorous defense is an important part of our judicial system, I wholeheartedly agree. And I don't want the government to limit speech. But it's still important to recognize how incredibly offensive and disgusting this guy's comments were -- whether or not they were made because of his job.
Also, on a technical note, sorry for all the double-posts and 500 Server Errors. Not sure why things are running slow today. If you get a 500 Server Error after posting a comment, just be patient and it will show up. You usually don't need to re-post.
I think that most of the commenters who are defending Mr. Stokke must not have followed either of those cases very closely. In both cases, he's perpetuated the idea that rape victims "ask for it" or deserve to be raped. That's not an appropriate defense, and it's that sort of sick smear tactic that's poisoning our judicial system.
The karma I was referring to, EG, was in regards to the statements that he made. His mysoginistic (sp) comments directed at other women were returned when the same type of comments were made about his daughter.
Yes, his daughter is her own being. Thank you very much for pointing out the obvious.
But the original story Ann posted was about the comments Al Stokes made. That was the basis for my original comment.
Thank you as well for your total dismissal of the concept of karma. Nothing like ignoring or belittling another person's belief system if it gets in the way of your own....I mean what the hell do millions of hindus know? Maybe in the next life you'll return as someone that reads the whole post before they comment on it or it's responses.
When you say "In other words, it's his daughter, and of course he's doing all he can to ensure she's safe...."
But then yourepeat at the end of the paragraph
"his wife, his sister, his mother, his daughter -- could be a victim of that violence."
Words are so tricky, and rhetoric gets slippery if we lose our consistency. At the beginning of the paragraph you seem to be referencing the oft spoken rhetorical ploy that men somehow feel entitled to own women, and in other places on the blog you show a great disdain for men feeling as if someone is 'theirs', So which "his" is it?
I mean, are we to just hate men always when we don't need them or have no imminent use for them, but allow them to 'own' us when we need protection?
As a lawyer, he must give whatever zealous defense his client requires.
AND, I highly doubt he is a shitty dad at all, and would wager that his daughter loves him dearly. I mean: does a shitty dad raise a pole vaulter?
Am I the only one who wonders if someone didn't start that thing with his daughter on purpose to show him what an asshole he is?
Sadly, it reminds me of Islamic fundamenalist countries where the women always suffer the punishment for crimes committed by men.
I think that, while Mr. Stokke may not have violated any of the existing ethical rules, he is not conducting himself in a way that promotes the integrity of the profession. I'm allowed to criticize his tactics as misogynistic and inappropriate courtroom conduct. He can zealously defend his clients without maligning women in general or the victims specifically. Sure, he can and should try to prove that they are lying, or mistaken about the identity of their attackers. But that's different from bringing in arguments about the (lack of) value of a woman's sexual agency based on her profession, or the degree to which an unconscious woman felt the physical pain of being sexually assaulted. I hate that many people think that "zealous representation" is a free pass or even a requirement to let the ends justify the means--it isn't.
Although it is a very odd coincidence that his daughter is now being exploited, I don't know how much it will change his mind or really how this is related, karmically or otherwise. I only hope he is supportive of her and that she hasn't internalized his misogyny to the point where she cannot identify and cope with the violation of her privacy and personhood.
I'm an atheist, efbg. I see no reason to believe that karma exists, and I would respond with the same flat denial if someone posted here claiming that this was an example of a wrathful Yahweh visiting the sins of the father upon the child. I get sick of people who most assuredly are not practicing Hindus (of course, I can't know this about anyone here, but I do know it for a fact about the people I know in real life) throwing around the term "karma" casually to mean "what goes around comes around"/"the bad guys get theirs in the end." I've seen nothing to convince me of either proposition, and I've seen even less to convince me that on the occasions that they do occur, there's some scheme of cosmic justice at work. Unfortunately.
Now, if one believes, as I do, that Allison Stokke is her own person, the harrassment directed at her is not "karmic" payback, because as far as we know, she's done nothing wrong. (As Ann pointed out.) So even if karma did exist, I don't see how it would apply to this situation.
It might apply if someone were saying nasty things about her father.
"The karma I was referring to, EG, was in regards to the statements that he made. His mysoginistic (sp) comments directed at other women were returned when the same type of comments were made about his daughter."
Nah, that's still doesn't sound karmic to me. It would be karmic if he got raped and the defense attorney of whomever raped him used "he asked for it" and "it didn't hurt him" arguments.
"Thank you as well for your total dismissal of the concept of karma. Nothing like ignoring or belittling another person's belief system if it gets in the way of your own..."
So now EG's an anti-Hindu bigot if she doesn't believe everything anyone else says about karma? What next, do we have to agree with everything anyone else says the Qu'ran and hadiths say about women if we don't want to be anti-Muslim bigots?
That's actually the kind of weird karmic coincidence I wouldn't believe existed if it wasn't happening in real life.
Except yeah, I don't know why the universe would make a man's daughter pay for his sins...except that karma does that sometimes.
Sounds Christian to me. You are not punished because you are sinful; rather, God tests his people and hopes to, through their suffering, make them more Christ-like. God can also use the same event for several purposes - for example, to awaken Mr. Stokkes to the depth of his vileness, to make sexist jerks see the effects of their supposedly victimless actions, and, perhaps, test a young woman.
I'm an atheist, so it would be nice if an actual Christian would comment.
I agree with Legally Blondeez. There is a right to counsel (yay - can we imagine a world without that?) and a right to a competent defense, but there are some defenses which simply should not be allowed in the courtroom. I would love it if evidentiary rules would keep out claims like, "She's a stripper, so she wanted it," unless the person could link strippers with wanting it (without payment - which, frankly, is absurd, because we don't expect that people will use their job skills when pulled over for speeding).
Sandinista-I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were accused of a crime. A zealous defense in the role of a defense attorney.
In the course of my admittedly brief and minor experience with being accused of a crime [that I didn't commit], I successfully maintained my principles. I'd like to think that I'd fire my defense attorney before I allowed him to sink so low on my behalf. However, not being in the habit of having "consensual sex" with unconscious minors, I somehow can't imagine myself in this predicament.
but I cannot fault him for fighting for his clients, no matter how scummy they are.
Yea, well, I can. Does the legal system need defense lawyers? Yes. Does that justify anything and everything a defense lawyer says? No. And does the fact that you're conducting a "rigorous defense" mean you are no longer responsible for your words? Hell no.
Would you feel the same way if it was a female defense attorney saying the same things this guy did?
Fuck yes, I would.
___
Stokke and his ilk are absolutely critical to the maintenance of rape culture. This is precisely the shit that perpetuates it all. This is victim-blaming at it's most absurd, most unethical, most public and most shameful. I don't care that he's a defense attorney or a librarian or a marine biologist. There IS NO EXCUSE for the things he says. If he can't be an effective lawyer without being a bad person, he should have made a different career choice. He could be doing any number of other things that don't allegedly require him to bolster misogyny. He made a choice when he became a lawyer and he makes another every time he takes a case and yet another every time he opens his mouth.
It also bears stating that he's hot shit; he defended the sheriff's son. Obviously, he is not alone, but he is wholly complicit in setting the tone for this type of trial. He could do it differently, but he doesn't. Another shitty, unforgivable choice.
___
AND, I highly doubt he is a shitty dad at all, and would wager that his daughter loves him dearly.
Misogynyists don't make good parents, particularly not to women. I see no reason to "wager" one way or another as to whether she loves him, but I feel the need to point out that many of us love family members in spite of some damned glaring flaws.
I mean: does a shitty dad raise a pole vaulter?
I'm sorry, what? How are her extroardinary athletic accomplishments reflections of her father's parenting skills? What kind of, pardon me, regressive, patriarchal bullshit is that?
skillful pole-vaulting abilities = excellent upbringing.
It's logically INFALLIBLE.
and while we're at it, need for legal defense = no need for human decency.
I'm learning so much today.
Not to stir the pot too much (sometimes I can't help myself) but karma in the Hindu sense (and also the Bhuddist sense) doesn't take effect until one's next lifetime.
So, if Stokke is going to "get his" for his actions in this lifetime, we're going to be waiting a while to see how it turns out.
Also, what Cara said.
Notice, ladies, that equityforbothgenders [MRA], Sailorman, et. al. helpfully illustrate a standard technique of patriarchy: resort to an allegedly neutral, higher principle to defend the most egregious misogyny.
It's zealous advocacy! It's free speech! You're not against free speech, are you?? they ask, rhetorically.
Of course, as legallyblondeez has so rightly pointed out, zealous advocacy need not permit, and certainly doesn't require, the likes of Allan Stokke. [And free speech is a red herring.] Stokke's "representation" relies on inflaming misogynist prejudices in order to create a pretext for acquittal by jury members (men and women) tacitly committed to maintaining the patriarchal status quo: sexual assault is nominally prohibited but condoned and even encouraged in practice.
Of course, such prejudices can never be marshalled against any other crime victims. Thus, the purportedly neutral principle of zealous advocacy* is in fact a tool of male domination. Male misogynist pseudo-liberals can happily vaunt it without any danger of suffering its consequences.
It's a neat trick, really. The menz get to position themselves as heroes, defenders of the moral high ground, champions of truth, justice, and the American way. In fact, they defend no meaningful principle except men's de facto right to use women like toilets.
*I'm not talking about actual zealous advocacy in the sense of capable, vigorous legal representation, of course; I'm talking about the asshat, no-holds-barred-slash-and-burn-victory-at-any-cost version that no lawyer with any actual regard for justice would touch with a ten-foot pole.
Here's what I think. This isn't "karma."
This is a guy who has spent his professional life perpetuating the notion that women cause and deserve to be victims of sexual violence, and that their bodies are public property, to be used for male titillation. This is just a result of that society. It just came back to bite him in the ass. He helped support a society that is now hurting someone he loves.
It's not really karma. It's the result of not thinking about the way your actions affect the world, and by extension, your own family. It's the result of not realizing that his daughter and wife and mother and the girls next door and all the other women in the world are affected by this problematic, sexist notion that women's bodies belong to men.
I must say, I particularly enjoyed timssopomo's iteration of the trope I describe above: "Really, it turns my stomach to say this, but rape-with-impunity followed by legally-sanctioned revictimization is necessary to a free society. I'm so sorry, but there's no other conceivable way to have a democracy. It's just the price that we - and by we I mean you - have to pay. So regrettable. Can I have my NiceGuy(tm) cookie now?"
Kattyben,
It's not a "patriarchal rape defense" issue for me, it's a general "criminal defense" issue, that doesn't have any exceptions for rape (or anything else, for that matter.)
I'm, and others here (I suspect) are not defending, as you so quaintly put it, "men's de facto right to use women like toilets." I am advocating against any erosion of what I consider to be one of our most important Constitutional protections. I do--and have--done the same thing for defendants of all sexes and who have been accused of all sorts of crimes. Sorry, but that is a principle. It benefits the accused in rape crimes... but it also benefits the accused in situations where a woman is accused of killing her abuser. And so on.
Sailorman, you merely prove my point by missing it entirely.
What Kattyben said.
Also, I'm curious as to whether the folks who are defending Stokke's "zealous advocacy" would offer the same endorsement of an attorney who used racial stereotypes to discredit a victim.
Claiming that a sexual encounter was consensual is one thing --- claiming that it must have been consensual because the victim is "an overtly sexual person" is wholly different.
The Federal Rules of Evidence (412) exclude a sexual assault victim's sexual history except in very limited circumstances. I can't find a similar provision in the California Rules of Evidence (Law Fairy...?), which could have made this tangent off of the main point of a gang-harassment of a high school athlete moot.
Right on, Angus.
As far as the “She got what she wanted... She’s an overtly sexual person" defense, I've said it before: just because a woman consents to sex with Guys 1-5 does not mean that she's consenting to sex with Guy #6.
Or in this case, just because she strips at her workplace, for customers, with a bouncer within shouting distance, it does not mean that she's okay with having an authority figure approach her during her off-hours and jack off on her in a secluded area.
This should not be such a difficult thing for people to understand.
I wonder how it came to be that comments deemed loathsome anywhere else (especially concerning a lawyer's own daughter) wouldn't invite censure in a court of law.
Norbizness, if TLF isn't around, I may be able to answer your question...but I'm having trouble making out what it is. Could you rephrase?
Norbizness:
I'm not TLF, but as far as I know, California's rape shield laws only prevent disclosure of discussion of an alleged victim's sexual past to the media (well, actually, to anyone, since the court records get sealed), and then only if that discussion is not admitted as evidence. It has no bearing on what questions can be asked in the courtroom. This got some play shortly after the Kobe Bryant rape case (the case was in Colorado, but both Colorado and California tried to improve the rape shield laws in the fallout).
Even FRE 412 has been weakened. I can't remember the exact case, but there was a federal case (somebody vs. U.S.) where the somewhat bizarre conclusion was made that although FRE 412 makes sexual history inadmissible for the purpose of determining whether the incident under examination was consensual, it can be raised as part of a defense that the defendent believed it to be consensual, creating sort of a back door bypass as long as you were disputing only that your client knew he was raping someone.
If I get any further into it, I'll have to actually look it up, and if I reread it, I know I'll start ranting, but I believe that this exception is still usable today.
Sailorman:
I try to avoid making a personal issue out of another poster's comments, but your attitude here is so strongly indicative of the corruption poisoning our legal system that I feel compelled to do so anyway.
If you are during the course of your defenses regularly making unfounded slanderous comments designed to conceal your client's known guilt by manipulating the jury emotionally, as Allan Stokke has, I firmly believe that you need to be disbarred. Even in an adversarial system, there exists such a thing as legal ethics. Adversarial does not mean 'no holds barred'. You are not allowed to encourage a jury to ignore the facts and ignore the law just because you can make them dislike the plaintiff. This defines the slimy lawyer stereotype, and it does not have to be this way in the courtroom.
This is neither an attack on free speech, nor an attack on defendant's rights. The point of the adversarial system is that, flawed as it is, it is the one that works best to let the truth come out, even when one advocate or another or both is corrupt. The fact that you can abuse it to a different end does not make that end the intended one. The commonly enforced limitations on courtroom behaviour demonstrate that it was not intended to allow an umlimited range of conduct.
Kattyben:
As I understand it, Norbizness is asking whether California's rape-shield laws provide parity to FR 412 in terms of generally admissible evidence. It's been a while since I looked at this, and I didn't delve deeply at the time, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details I gave above -- if you can clarify, please do so.
I must say, I particularly enjoyed timssopomo's iteration of the trope I describe above: "Really, it turns my stomach to say this, but rape-with-impunity followed by legally-sanctioned revictimization is necessary to a free society. I'm so sorry, but there's no other conceivable way to have a democracy. It's just the price that we - and by we I mean you - have to pay. So regrettable. Can I have my NiceGuy(tm) cookie now?"
I'm not asking for a cookie, I'm expressing ambivalence because I'm ambivalent. Sometimes, people haven't made up their minds about an issue and sometimes, discussions like this are an avenue for changing opinions. Think of my motives what you will, but that characterization is pretty off.
Here's what I'm worried about: from what I understand, defense attorneys are legally and through professional ethics obligated to provide their clients with the best defense possible while upholding respect for the law. If that's the case, and if he has reason to think that the jury would be swayed by the arguments he made (I'm referring to what's in the post above, I'm not sure if there's other really beyond-the-pale behavior that other people are referring to), then wouldn't Stokke be obligated to make the arguments? Anybody with half a brain not blinded by misogyny should see that they're terrible arguments, but not every jury member is. So what then?
Anyway, what I wanted to point out about the original post is that his "lack of concern" or "outright disdain" for women who were sexually assaulted may be obligatory, given his clients and the state of society/the law. That's all. If I'm wrong about that, I'll gleefully change my tune.
I'm going to make myself unpopular and side with Sailorman, timssopomo et al. No one has any clue what the father's beliefs are based on what he said on behalf of his client.
Lawyers are ethically obliged (in advocacy systems like the US and the Commonwealth) to do everything they can to gain acquital. Prosecutors are under the opposite obligation. Stokke defends murderers too, I expect, and yet doesn't approve of murder. And I pay y ACLU dues even though they've gone to court on behalf of the Klan, and supported Larry Flynt. (Actually, in large part because. they got involved in these cases.)
Besides - this is the DAUGHTER we're talking about. Not the father. How the kind of asshattery to which she has been subjected is justified by her father's choices escapes me.
Feminism (me making an assertion here) is about understanding and respecting the rights (and obligations) of women - regardless of who their father's is.
This post and thread disappoint me.
Paul, I think it's quite clear that everyone here thinks what's happening to Alison is dreadful. Please show me where someone is saying that "the kind of asshattery to which she has been subjected is justified by her father's choices". The fact is that her father's choices contribute to a world where that kind of thing happens and he should realize that by promoting contempt towards women and slandering victims of sexual assault, he plays a part in propagating misogynist notions that ultimately hurt his own daughter. Lots of people of his ilk cannot empathize with anyone UNLESS they are friends or family.
Besides, for all advocates of a "no holds barred" defense, let's say someone shot a Black man. If his lawyer was claiming that the victim was a mugger because all Black people are criminals, would you think of it as an acceptable defense system if it could "sway the jury"???
Et Al:
"Stokke and his ilk are absolutely critical to the maintenance of rape culture. This is precisely the shit that perpetuates it all,"
I dunno: I think that the shit that perpetuates rape culture is women vying for the control of dialoguge, and ideology,and wishing to control this healthy, and sensual, but athletic and capable girls destiny, and those same employing tactics that smack of fascist ethos. After all the brownshirts et al needed the same stereotypes you rely on to get their message across. 'Men are evil' Jews are evil. etc.
Power is your god, not truth or justice.
I mean, you want us to require defense lawyers top forego their obligation to zealously defend clients ( many of whom are falsely accused--but you don't care about that do you? You want a world full of women who gained power by manipulating data, falsifying facts, and obscuring facts, and hiding their less than accountable actions from juries, right? )
And then, you want prisons full of men who are denied opportunity--as long as the prisons are full of men.
But you don't want justice, or you would advocate penalties for false acussers, and mandatory sentencing fior those confused opportunists.
So, Stokke stands, for me at least, as a contradiction: one more strange story of a man with a daughter he is able to protect, and one more mnan who stands against women who sexualize and fantasize about a girl in a dilemma; another object for so called feminists to explore sexually, and virtually inrhetoric, positing umpteen ill thoughts on a man and wishing umpteen ill things for him, a human being, in the covert hope that you can be closer to his daughter. Sick . Sad.
Bless his heart for keeping his daughters interests above predatory quasi prurient female political agendas;-)
I think that the shit that perpetuates rape culture is women vying for the control of dialoguge, and ideology,and wishing to control this healthy, and sensual, but athletic and capable girls destiny, and those same employing tactics that smack of fascist ethos.
There you have it: feminists are responsible for rape because, you know, they . . . talk and stuff. And what WERE us feminists doing posting this girl's picture all over the internet and making sexual comments about here? And have we ever considered the fact that maybe women who work as strippers DO like to be stopped by traffic cops and randomly ejaculated all over? And who said that rape is wrong, anyway? I never considered it before, but now I see that a lot of women probably LIKE being made to have sex against their will.
Thanks penelope traintrax for expanding my worldview. Silly me, I always thought that women were worth something, and that it was MEN who were holding women back. Now I know better!
So seriously, you can move onto trolling on OTHER blogs now. Or go fuck yourself. Either one is okay with me.
"I don't care that he's a defense attorney or a librarian or a marine biologist. There IS NO EXCUSE for the things he says."
THANK YOU. This "it's his job to be a misogynistic rape apologist" excuse is making me sick. No one is saying a defendant doesn't deserve a good attorney. We are saying that mocking the injuries of a girl penetrated by a fucking soda can is unacceptable under ANY circumstances.
Goddamn.
Oh my god this is such an interesting thread but I couldn't get very far because the cringing from all the misuse of karma, then the painfully incorrect corrections of the misuse of karma (maybe you did correct it, but I couldn't look anymore) has rendered me half blind.
Okay, I'm Hindu *AND* an atheist and without getting into too much theory: THAT IS POSSIBLE. Hinduism was officially made a religion in the 20th C for political reasons (irrelevant to this thread, look it up) but in actuality, it's a school of thought. I don't know what wikipedia or cosmo told most people here, but like I told the kids in grade school who used to call themselves "diva" (a tiny oil lamp) and wear bindis like Gwen Stefani/Madonna (depending on your generation): Karma just means "deed" or "act". Dharma means "duty". They often go hand in hand.
It's NOT as simplistic as "what goes around comes around." Most people in my family literally say "what comes around goes around" too. The godbagging, godfearing, godloving, godworshipping Hindus DO believe that the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and all previous lives are manifested in the next life, but this one as well. That's just LIVING. Not good or bad or anything. You do something, something else is bound to happen as a result of that.
Eeugh. Now I'm going to substitute the word "lollipop" for all previous uses of "karma" and work my way through this.
But otherwise, interesting points on the role of an attorney regarding defense and prosecution. I'm learning a lot.
Zed,
Which part of "I don't and won't do rape law" did you fail to understand? But I appreciate the disbarring comments.
You know, every time rape come up, something like this happens. [shrug]
What people tend to ignore is this: Rape is only one aspect of an extraordinarily complex judicial system; rape victims are only one class of criminal defendants; lawyers who defend them are only one category of criminal defense lawyers.
As a result, guess what? Objective principles don't always happen to be a "good thing" as applied to rape law, or rape cases. But that doesn't mean the principles are not incorrect--especially since our courts, our Consitution, and our system, don't do a very great job distinguishing between "rape" and "non rape" cases and laws.
My views of the criminal defense system weren't developed as an attempt to help rapists. They developed over the course of studying a lot of NONrape cases (often the typical "poor POC defendant" cases) where defendants (both men AND women) got royally screwed. And you know what? Those cases are, and will continue to be, both depressingly common in general, and more common than rape cases.
You can't make general rules based solely on rape. Are you willing to trade off of the rights of all those other defendants to make it easier to convict rapists? Are you willing to mess with their defenses in court in order to protect rape victims? Or do you want to pretend that we live in a world where sweeping changes can be made in rape law that just-so-happen not to percolate at all into the rest of the judicial system?
I mean hell, AS I HAVE SAID HERE I personally find this pretty damn distasteful. (nice job ignoring that, BTW) But there's a big difference between "distasteful" and "illegal."
Reform the courts if you want. I'm all for it. I've written posts on reformation, on improving rape laws to convict more guilty rapists, and have made other suggestions w/r/t the topic (also conveniently ignored) on this blog as well.
But you're a single-issue cannon, it seems. And if the first and only thing you try to chip away at are defendant's rights--as if criminal defendants don't have enough problems already in today's system--then I will fight against it tooth and nail. Whether it's in the name of rape prevention, feminism, or anything else, a limited view simply doesn't work here. If you want to classify that as patriarchy, so be it.
Again, Sailorman, no one is chipping away at defendant's rights. As you said, sexual assault is only one crime in our legal system. But if all crimes are to be treated equally, why can we say that a police officer ejaculates on a stripper during a traffic stop did it because she "wanted it" but not that the black man he beat with his club "wanted it?" Or that the guy he murdered "wanted it?" Or that the victim of the car he stole "wanted it?"
Again, you CAN'T make rules based solely on sexual assault. All we're asking for is equal treatment for all victims of crime. You don't seem to be adhering to your own principle here.
Which part of "I don't and won't do rape law" did you fail to understand?
Zed said: If you are during the course of your defenses regularly making unfounded slanderous comments designed to conceal your client's known guilt by manipulating the jury emotionally, as Allan Stokke has, I firmly believe that you need to be disbarred.
How does this comment imply or state that you "do rape law"?
rape victims are only one class of criminal defendants; lawyers who defend them are only one category of criminal defense lawyers.
Wow, I just could not have scripted that better if I'd tried. Bravo.
They developed over the course of studying a lot of NONrape cases (often the typical "poor POC defendant" cases) where defendants (both men AND women) got royally screwed.
You can't make general rules based solely on rape. Are you willing to trade off of the rights of all those other defendants to make it easier to convict rapists?
Wait, I recognize this from Feminism, Wave Two. Hello, it's divide and conquer! These oppressions are totally disparate and non-intersecting and they have to be viewed as competing priorities, a zero-sum game. Choose a side: poor POC or women! (Because we all know poor POC are never female and don't get raped, no sirree bob!)
Don't you see? If we protect survivors of sexual assault from vicious court-room attacks by sleazy misogynists, er, I mean, vehement defense lawyers, we must accept that poor POC lose their rights. Clear as day, people. Clear as fucking day.
Or do you want to pretend that we live in a world where sweeping changes can be made in rape law that just-so-happen not to percolate at all into the rest of the judicial system?
Because as it stands the judicial system is doing just so well for poor POC. No, we wouldn't want to risk losing all that non-racist non-classism to prevent some "pretty damn distasteful" comments in the direction of the occasional gang-raped girl.
Oh, and, about that...
I personally find this pretty damn distasteful. (nice job ignoring that, BTW)
"Pretty damn distasteful"? No, my friend, your divisive BS is "pretty damn distasteful." Stokke's actions are disgusting, unconscionable and violent. But if you really, really want, I'll give you your fucking cookie: you spent one [short] sentence maybe kinda sorta not totally apologizing for rape culture. Gold star!
And if the first and only thing you try to chip away at are defendant's rights
How? By preventing his lawyer from harassing a rape victim? Seriously, please explain how our condemnation of Stokke translates into chipping at defendant's rights?
>>Again, Sailorman, no one is chipping away at defendant's rights. As you said, sexual assault is only one crime in our legal system. But if all crimes are to be treated equally, why can we say that a police officer ejaculates on a stripper during a traffic stop did it because she "wanted it" but not that the black man he beat with his club "wanted it?" Or that the guy he murdered "wanted it?" Or that the victim of the car he stole "wanted it?"
If someone is murdered, a defense attorney is allowed to bring up his gambling problems, his drinking habit, his criminal record, his bad relationships with his kids--dragging the victim through the mud in order to show the jury that someone else did it. I'm sorry, rape is unique, but it's not as unique in this quality as you think. As long as the lawyer confines himself to talking about the victim and doesn't make claims about "whites" or "women" in general, I'm not sure he can be faulted.
If you discredit or disbar an attorney for making a specific defense you find morally wrong, you open up an attack against all defenses. And if you express any moral satisfaction (about justice, karma, whatever) when a lawyer does his job and then finds out that his daughter is in trouble, well, that's not any better.
Yes, I know it's frustrating not to be able to run the world, and tell everybody "This is what we do in this case, but *this* case is soo much different." Not everyone will agree with you. Some people think OJ's defense was unethical. You can't hide from unintended consequences of your positions just by blaming the whole rest of the world for taking a precedent and running with it. It's utterly predictable that it will happen.
"Seriously, please explain how our condemnation of Stokke translates into chipping at defendant's rights"
Oh, isn't it clear? Improving the situation for victims of rape (mostly women), isn't focusing on the REAL people - the defendants (mostly men). Therefore, us silly girls are just not paying attention to real issue - that a defense attorney is totally free to say that a girl penetrated by a soda can - among other things- didn't REALLY get hurt because she was unconscious. That's totally okay.
And if you say it's not okay, you're against defendant rights, against due process and a goddamn bad 'merican!
"If you discredit or disbar an attorney for making a specific defense you find morally wrong, you open up an attack against all defenses. And if you express any moral satisfaction (about justice, karma, whatever) when a lawyer does his job and then finds out that his daughter is in trouble, well, that's not any better."
See? You sill girls aren't paying attention to the men enough, and so anything you say is irrelevant and facist to boot.
Sailorman:
By claiming that Allan Stokke's actions were just part and parcel of any legal defense, you imply that those techniques, used in any context, are ethical.
Let me make it clear to you, since you seem to be harping on the point:
I do not care whether you are representing someone accused of rape, murder, theft, or even a corporation accused of polluting or securities fraud. If your defense technique involves abusing your immunity to slander a plaintiff over irrelevancies, I want you gone. You are part of the problem with today's legal system.
Does this substantially weaken the defenses of those incorrectly accused? I don't think so. Does it weaken the defenses of those *correctly* accused? Yes, yes it does. This is a good thing.
Anyone else notice how whenever a thread like this come up, it's always predominantly MEN who defend our legal system and the rights of attorneys to completely violate victim's rights? And then has anyone else noticed that men are infinitely more likely than women are to be the perpetrators of violent crime? And how much more likely women are to be the victims?
But no, nothing sexist going on here. This is about RIGHTS (for men). This is about EQUALITY (for men). And protecting our Constitution (written by men, for men, in order to protect and serve men).
[For the record, I do believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I do not, however, believe in "innocent as long as the victim is a Slut."]
Oh, and one additional thing, as it comes to mind: you keep talking about this as if it is some new, unheard-of thing to be penalized for misconduct in a courtroom. There are, in fact, ethical guidelines in most states already, some of which include the conduct we are discussing. See, for instance, the Oregon Code of Professional Responsibility, section 7-106 (C) (2). And yes, lawyers are disbarred for violations of the code. (The case of D. Scott Summer is available on the net, but I can only link one place per comment.)
What I want is for that rule to be well enforced throughout the United States.
Tom:
This is certainly true -- assuming that those claims are substantiated by the evidence and are actually relevant (i.e. indicate that other people had means, motive, or opportunity). However, what the lawyer is NOT allowed to do in such a case is to speak at length about an imagined gambling problem based only on the fact that the deceased once lived on a reservation. Nor may he drag the name of the deceased through the mud when it has no bearing on whether or not the accused committed the act, but only on the emotional argument that the deceased was such a slimebag that the accused actually did the world a favor. That's the murder analogue to what Allan Stokke does in the courtroom that we're discussing.
The really sad part of this article isn't this young woman's ignorant father, it's the fact that her outstanding accomplishments aren't what's in the spotlight. What blew me away is that she's graduating with higher than a 4.0 and had been scouted by some of the most prestigous colleges in the country. Kudos to her for staying focused and working hard for something she loves...more PEOPLE (male and female) in this world could learn a thing or two from Allison!
The really sad part of this article isn't this young woman's ignorant father, it's the fact that her outstanding accomplishments aren't what's in the spotlight. What blew me away is that she's graduating with higher than a 4.0 and had been scouted by some of the most prestigous colleges in the country. Kudos to her for staying focused and working hard for something she loves...more PEOPLE (male and female) in this world could learn a thing or two from Allison!
The really sad part of this article isn't this young woman's ignorant father, it's the fact that her outstanding accomplishments aren't what's in the spotlight. What blew me away is that she's graduating with higher than a 4.0 and had been scouted by some of the most prestigous colleges in the country. Kudos to her for staying focused and working hard for something she loves...more PEOPLE (male and female) in this world could learn a thing or two from Allison!
The really sad part of this article isn't this young woman's ignorant father, it's the fact that her outstanding accomplishments aren't what's in the spotlight. What blew me away is that she's graduating with higher than a 4.0 and had been scouted by some of the most prestigous colleges in the country. Kudos to her for staying focused and working hard for something she loves...more PEOPLE (male and female) in this world could learn a thing or two from Allison!
I'm with Lizard on this one. Defending misogynists in court does not make one a misogynist. If this were true, the majority of Public Defenders in this country could be labeled as such, as they are required to defend rapists, abusers, pederasts and so forth. If there weren't people willing to do this, our justice system would be even more discriminatory than it is now, especially to women, the underemployed, racial and ethnic minorities, etc... This is especially true when those on trial are innocent.
Anyone else notice how whenever a thread like this come up, it's always predominantly MEN who defend our legal system and the rights of attorneys to completely violate victim's rights? And then has anyone else noticed that men are infinitely more likely than women are to be the perpetrators of violent crime? And how much more likely women are to be the victims?
But no, nothing sexist going on here. This is about RIGHTS (for men). This is about EQUALITY (for men). And protecting our Constitution (written by men, for men, in order to protect and serve men).
[For the record, I do believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I do not, however, believe in "innocent as long as the victim is a Slut."]
Do you really think it's an either/or proposition here? Either you're on board with the popular position in this comment thread, or you're disingenuously protecting the right of men to rape women with impunity? I'm not going to commit myself to defending Sokke's entire conduct, since it's become more and more clear to me that his conduct is beyond the pale in the case outside of the questionable stuff in the OP. But do you really think that questioning whether the above, in and of itself, is legitimate conduct is believing "innocent as long as the victim is a slut"? It's possible to endorse the ability of someone to say something without endorsing the content of their speech.
I've yet to see any suggestion on how to restrict the arguments in the OP without limiting legitimate defenses. If anyone has one that won't result in false convictions if applied generally or, if applied specifically, wouldn't presume the defendant's guilt or their right to face their accusers, I'd be happy to hop on board.
I mean: does a shitty dad raise a pole vaulter?
I'm still digesting this thread, but I have to address this excellent point. He is clearly shitty in the way he applies ethics to his job (desite the fact he is technically doing his job). I mean, I would probably be tempted to hire someone to personally take a dump on his windshield every morning...but the thing is, he might be a good father. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Last year at a BBQ, I met a delightful young man. This kid is very astute for his age, and is the wet dream for every politically savvy, forward-thinking 19 yr old girl. He mentioned that his parents met at so-and-so's birthday party (insert very famous Republican here), and we all said, "crazy!" THEN he mentioned who his father is. I'll just say: trust me, very, very good spawn can come from people with even terrible work ethics. Obviously this guy was a good father at home.
I love to trash bad Republicans as much as anyone, but always remember that they might have great kids who still think the world of their parents.
What Zed said.
I have great respect for the legal system, or I wouldn't be working in it. Part of that respect is criticizing other members of the bar who fail to show the same respect for zealous advocacy within the bounds of responsible, ethical representation.
I'm not going to go so far as to say Stokke should be disbarred, but I will say that I think he is not an ethical attorney.
And really, 95% of this thread has had nothing to do with Allison, because we can all agree that what has happened to her is not right and it's not particularly interesting to sit around agreeing with each other all the time, contrary to popular belief. So no, nobody is saying Allison Stokke deserved to be crapped on by the patriarchy. But nobody else did either, and it's interesting to talk about the lengths to which her father has gone to perpetuate abuse of women, in the name of zealous representation.
Well, I'm a woman and I actually support a defendant's right to effective representation. Unfortunately, unlike in a robbery or murder case, consent is a fundamental aspect of sexual assault. Unfortunately, defense attorneys can and for the most part should use whatever means necessary to poke holes in the prosecution's case.
What we actually need are better juries, made up of people who know that "sluts," women with psychological problems, and all women who have ever done something questionable or wrong can be raped. Condemning defense attorneys for doing whatever is necessary to defend their clients gets us nowhere.
I'd really like to see the folks who've been defending Stokke respond to the question that at least three (four?) of us have raised: Do you see an ethical issue if a defense lawyer slanders a crime victim in a racist way?
Because, again, when Stocke characterized the woman who was ejaculated on was "an overtly sexual person," he wasn't presenting evidence of consent. He was leveraging sexist stereotypes to give the illusion of evidence. That's the tactic that's being objected to most strongly here.
So how about it? Is it ethical for a defense lawyer, to buttress a contention a that a victim was drunk when the crime took place, draw attention to the fact that he's a Native American? If he's defending someone accused of assault, can he ethically say "and of course the complainant is Latino, and we all know how hot-tempered those people are?"
Well?
The rules are already there: as far as I know, all state and federal courts have evidentiary rules that exclude anything that is 1) not relevant and/or 2) more prejudicial than probative. Rape shield laws merely specify for judges who don't get it that a victim's sexual past is not relevant, and in any case is more prejudicial than probative.
An attorney is welcome to attack the truthfulness of a particular story, the accuracy of any scientific evidence (DNA etc.), and to show that her client is not the perpetrator of the alleged crime. Saying things about the worth of the victim as a human being or that she deserved to be assaulted/murdered or that she didn't feel pain because, gee, she was already passed out anyway is way outside the bounds of relevance and is incredibly prejudicial.
Agreed that some people are very nice socially, and good parents, and yet do things I cannot stomach.