case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2015-12-03 06:41 pm

[ SECRET POST #3256 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3256 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The Man From U.N.C.L.E.]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Ace Attorney]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 010 secrets from Secret Submission Post #465.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post:
here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
replicantangel: (Default)

Re: controversial/confrontational/hostile/bitter opinions

[personal profile] replicantangel 2015-12-04 05:46 am (UTC)(link)
1. Things have gotten a lot better in regards to playing to a jury's bias. It's been a slow process but attorneys are rarely surprised by a jury's decision anymore. This is because of voir dire rules, and rape shield laws (for the most part). Voir dire is supposed to expose those potential jurors with unmovable biases such as "I think a woman who dresses like a slut deserves it, and I will not change my mind." That person would be stricken for cause (they've essentially said they will not listen to the evidence presented because of preconceived biases). Attorneys also get a number of preemptory strikes, where they can strike a juror they have a bad feeling about. For instance, if they say "I think the way a woman dresses has an effect on men's behavior" but then agrees to listen to the evidence, they can't be stricken for cause, but any prosecutor wouldn't want that person on a jury, just in case. As long as it's not for certain class reasons (they can't strike all woman or all white people for that same reason), it's a powerful tool for shaping a jury.

Rape shield laws came about in the 70s and 80s across most states, where a victim's sexual history cannot be brought up in trial. This was a HUGE factor in bias in juries - they were finding defendants not guilty because the victim was known to be "loose" or "slutty", even if there was clear evidence of guilt.

2. The immorality would be far greater in not defending those accused of rape. I would (and regularly am) appalled by any rapist set free, but if a police officer violates that rapist's constitutional rights, there should be consequences or it opens every suspect and defendant to constitutional abuse. That is first and foremost what defense attorneys are for - to ensure a fair trial and to hold the state accountable for its actions. Otherwise, the state (i.e. the cops and DAs) could do whatever they damn well pleased to get a conviction. This standard must be held across the board - from petty theft to rape to capital murder to a parking ticket - because if it erodes in one area, it will erode in all. And what about those few that have been falsely accused? Think of the Scottsboro Boys or the Duke lacrosse team - extreme examples (especially since false allegations are by far the minority), but in one case, the defense attorneys saved those boys, and in the other, their poor defense condemned them.

Honestly, every single trial I've been in has been a game of emotions, and I mean Every. Single. One. And that's on both sides. Every person in that courtroom brings biases and prejudices to the trial, and there's no ignoring that. But the culture is changing and mostly for the better. Rape will always be a tricky crime to prosecute, of course. It's often "he said/she said", instead of, say, being able to point to a house that's been burglarized that everyone can see with a glance has been burglarized. That will lend itself more easily to having the jury fall back on their feelings and biases, and that's not good. But what has to change is how people think about rape, and that is happening.