New audio of Clinton talking about 1975 defense of alleged child rapist (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 10:57:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  New audio of Clinton talking about 1975 defense of alleged child rapist (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: New audio of Clinton talking about 1975 defense of alleged child rapist  (Read 3876 times)
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


« on: June 23, 2014, 03:24:27 PM »

A defense attorney has an obligation to offer the most spirited defense of a defendant, no matter how infamous the defendant and the alleged crime. In the 1970s the norm of a rape defense was to accuse the victim. In essence,

"She dressed provocatively".
"She egged him on".
"She was loose".

With a twelve-year-old girl, none of this would now work.  If an adult has any sexual contact with a twelve-year-old child, then he has committed statutory rape. But that is not how things were in the 1970s, when the legal practice was far more permissive toward men.

Sexual attitudes have changed severely in forty years. We have become far more accepting of homosexuality and extremely intolerant of sex with children.  

Right.  But that doesn't get at the question I posed: OK, "A defense attorney has an obligation to offer the most spirited defense of a defendant" as you say.  But is there any such thing as an unethical defense?  If you attack the credibility of a witness for the purpose of intimidating them from testifying because they won't want to testify if their name is dragged through the mud (and thus forcing a plea bargain) rather than for the purpose of convincing the jury, is that unethical?  Are you ethically required to do that if you think it will work?  I understand that this used to be a very common tactic for lawyers in rape cases, but was it right?

Doesn't sound like the victim knew Hillary reported hearing this information about her when requesting a psychiatrist evaluate. Not sure we can assume it was an attempt to intimidate her. Doesn't sound like there was any ever testimony or jury either. If the rapist said this to cast doubt on the victim's credibility, as low as it is, Hillary would be derelict in her duty as his attorney to not include it.

It's weird to me that the prosecutor would ask her to represent a rapist since his boss would have been Bill Clinton, then Arkansas's AG, preparing to run for governor. Also weird that Hillary would give such a candid interview when Bill was surely already eyeing a run for president.

Hillary mentioned this in her first book it seems. Looking forward to hearing Schweitzer's take on it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.