this focuses a bit more on the philosophy of law, broadly defined.
this blog post discusses 'rape culture' and cites the following examples from men defending themselves against rape charges in court:
An 11 year old girl who was gang-raped by several men was told by the defence that she was like a “spider” who lured men into her web. It is when women are questioned on their past sexual history and drinking habits; as if either of these bears any relation to whether consent was sought and got.my question is, is it the proper place to attack the strategy of the defense along these lines? is it not the right of the defense to use rape-cultural attitudes among the jurors to its benefit in seeking an acquittal?
it court be argued that the blog post moves to transcend all of this, but the second part of the second statement, "as if either of these bears any relation to whether consent was sought and got", points in another direction. my position is that, for the suspect charged with a serious crime, all hands are absolutely on deck: exploitation of any racial, cultural, sexual bias that may exist among the jurors and the public at-large is completely fair game, and should not be treated as morally offensive or even meaningful. the criminal courtroom is a vacuum which trades in life and limb.
