« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ethics For Dummies: A Recommended Reference For The New York Times the Next Time They Report A Rape Case.

I once attended college with an interesting and very decent guy who wanted to be an attorney. He confided in me once about his biggest ethical concern about being a defense attorney: defending a rapist who he knew to be guilty. It would be far worse for him if he had to defend as many as seveteen – all of whom had their way with the same 11-year-old girl. The recent case of gang-rape that occurred in Cleveland, Texas last fall, would have to be the legal assignment of his nightmares. The Houston Chronicle describes the unconscionable brutality that occurred below.

Seventeen men and boys, including a middle school student and adults in their 20s, have been charged with sexually assaulting Maria’s daughter, a sixth-grader, in a dingy trailer. That number could grow to 28.

(Houston Chronicle, 7 Mar 2011)

So if my old buddy, The Future Lawyer, is out there, and has a law firm, a recent issue of the New York Times goes light on the ethics but offers great tactical advice. They show how to defend 17 accused rapists who all took turns attacking the same 11-year-old girl.

The Future Lawyer opined that he would first have to make the woman appear to have no morals; so that she would have no decent gravamen to call it a rape. This is known colloquially as the “she just wanted it defense.” The New York Times, like the paragon of journalistic integrity that it is, shows how the “she just wanted it defense” is properly executed.

Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.

“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”

(HT?:New York Times, Ob. Cit.)

So The New York Times has described the victim as the Hoochie Momma Jezebel of the 11-Year-Old Set. She would dress like a 20-year-old. She even hung around with teenage boys. Then, there was the whole riff about her mom. Obviously, if she were more modest and her parents knew their job, none of this would ever have happened.

My old college buddy mentioned another aspect of defending the rapist. Make him look like a pillar of the community – after you’ve painted the victim up to be The Whore of Babylon. This is where my buddy’s hypothetical defense would probably fall apart. There is no making these defendants look like anything other than the iniquitous human beings they are. The New York Times describes the accused rapists below.

Five suspects are students at Cleveland High School, including two members of the basketball team. Another is the 21-year-old son of a school board member. A few of the others have criminal records, from selling drugs to robbery and, in one case, manslaughter. The suspects range in age from middle schoolers to a 27-year-old.

(New York Times, Ob. Cit.)

So the New York Times reports a crime. However, they demonstrate a horrendous ethical lassitude in how it is reported. The victimized girl was described by the New York Times in manner that conjures up images of women of ill repute, trolling the allies of Santa Monica Boulevard. It almost makes the reader think the New York Times believed she had it coming to her. Here is more description of what the New York Times implies she was asking for.

They first went to the blue house, where she was ordered to disrobe. If she refused, the statement said, she was warned other girls would beat her up and she would never get a ride back home. Soon she was having sex with multiple young men there, the statement said. Someone used a phone to invite four more men, who soon arrived. Not long afterward, the group fled through a back window when they heard a relative of one of the teens arriving at the blue house. The 11-year-old left behind her bra and panties as the group moved to the nearby abandoned trailer, where the assaults continued. As the men had sex with the girl, others used their cell phones to take photographs and video, police said.

(The Houston Chronicle, Ob. Cit.)

To imply that she in any way invited the scene described above defies ethical decency. The journalists at The New York Times have publically defamed an 11-year-old girl, who has been filmed getting raped by 17 different attackers, ranging in age from her near-peers to twenty-seven years old. Thus, we’ll have to give them some remedial instruction.

No, not in journalism; the Times is a lost cause in that particular field of endeavor. I was just hoping to help them practice basic, humane ethics. With that noble goal in mind, I recommend that all writers, editors, secretaries and copy-setters sit themselves down and read Ethics For Dummies. It is, after all, a reference for the rest of us. Maybe it would provide these practitioners of the so-called journalistic profession just enough of a background to report the next brutal gang rape with a modicum of basic decency.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    In cases of rape there are sometimes circumstances surrounding the event that indicate lapsed moral judgment on the part of the victim. So what. It doesn’t provide an excuse. Particularly when the victim is an 11 year old girl. For God’s sake. Are they so eager to deflect responsibility from Black males for the sake of the liberal narrative that they would place blame on an 11 year old girl for getting gang-raped by them?

    This excuse-making for these criminals is no less depraved than the crime itself.

    This kind of crap seriously disrupts my calm.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    …though your analysis of the reporting in the Times is really excellent. I’m sure that, ahem, interesting ethical models are employed in the newsroom with some frequency.

    Thanks for putting this together.

  • tampaconservative

    and I am referring to the despicable people at the NYT. Have they no shame?

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      is that we both already know the answer. I feel committed and compassionate about stuff like this or I wouldn’t blog. But with some f’ups, (and I’m not talking about the rape-monsters either), you just wonder if it does any good…

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    She’s 11 for heaven’s sake! That can’t possibly be above the age of consent. Introduce the videos into evidence – open-and-shut case of statutory rape. Prison all round. Can’t be that complicated, can it?

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      is about avoiding ethical and moral responsibility for attrocious sexual behavior. To the extent to which the NYT does this, they help the next rape like this one happen.

      As for the perps, they will spend many months and hopefully years, behind cold, iron bars. That part of it is the least of my concerns.

      • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

        Compare and contrast the NYT and Chronicle narratives. The Chronicle talks about the fact that the girl and her sibling are in the gifted & talented program and gives some insight into her online social networking habits (not good ones), which helps to provide narrative background and (fairly) implies a degree of parental responsibility, since they didn’t know what she was doing on the computer. In other words, it’s a bit more ambiguous and human and, all in all, a better story than the NYT.

        The Times narrative includes this bit:

        The town?s economy has always rested on timber, cattle, farming and oil. But there are pockets of poverty, and in the neighborhood where the assault occurred, well-kept homes sit beside boarded-up houses and others with deteriorating facades…The abandoned trailer where the assault took place is full of trash and has a blue tarp hanging from the front.

        They have to find a way to work in poverty as the root cause for depravity, in other words, despite the fact that the rapists included children of prominent community members.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          of a school board member isn’t living off of Ramen Pride.

        • Raven

          Just wanted to correct a little error there in your title…

      • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

        …that it is important to understand WHY they seek to excuse ethical and moral responsibility for this atrocious sexual behavior.

        A gang of Black males ranging from middle school into their 20s gang-raping a non-Black girl is an image that counters the liberal narrative. That is their motivation.

        To prove it, make the girl Black and the rapist gang White. There would be no hand-wringing over why these otherwise fine young gentlemen harmed this girl who was asking for it. It would be a hate-crime, pure and simple.

        This whole tack from the NYT is about protecting the liberal narrative as it applies to Blacks and the inherent nobility on the part of Blacks that is assumed by that liberal narrative.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
          • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest
          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            http://takimag.com/article/blacks_rape_preteen_hispanic_in_texas_whites_get_blamed1

    • clowngirl

      These scumbags need to be charged with aggravated rape – plus, from the sound of things, kidnapping and multiple counts of child pornography. And — this calling in of their friends – isn’t that solicitation of rape or some other form of criminal behavior? What about the threats of violence? It sounds like there were multiple acts of criminal behavior -beyond the 17-28 rapes, which should keep at least some of the assailants behind bars well into their 40s.

      Rape is horrific under any circumstances – but ensuring that a little girl was raped by 17-28 people, & videotaping it almost makes you wish Texas had a broader application of the death penalty.

      Blaming the victim in this case is utterly revolting – even by the standards of the NY Times. Repair Man Jack is right to bring attention to it — and even their readers are unlikely to be able to stomach this. The typical liberal has many flaws but I don’t think excusing the gang rape of children is usually one of them..

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        to go after video sexting and other such grossness that comes with the modern ge?

        • clowngirl

          I’m not sure of the actual laws but I did look up the penalty for aggravated rape in Texas. One definition is the rape of someone under 14 years of age. The penalty for a first offense is up to 25 years, for a second conviction it’s life in prison or even death. (apparently they stiffened the laws in 2007)

          So they should be going to prison for a very long time regardless.

        • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

          In some staes, it requires an individual to register as a sex offender. I’m usually a bit wary of that punishment for sexting (especially in stories like the CNN one), but since a firing squad and (my second favorite) Lorena Bobbitt-style emasculation and catheterization (done without anaesthesia, natch) are not likely, I’m completely in favor of adding felony child porn charges for everyone involved in the filming, if possible, just to lengthen their sentences.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            I’m pleasantly surprised that sexting doesn’t avoid charges, as long as the sexters stream content for free.

  • annas

    A child of 11 can’t “ask for it!” She is below the age of consent for s–t sakes! Even if some child says OK–it is NOT OK — it is the responsibility of adults and older individuals to protect children, not USE and abuse them. In Texas, this is sexual assault of a child! This particular crime is so egregious that I truly wonder who can/will defend these rapists!

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      From the Houston Chronicle article that RMJ linked:

      James D. Evans III, an attorney who represents three of the defendants, insists: “This is not a case of a child who was enslaved or taken advantage of.”

      I assume that this man sleeps at night. I don’t know how.

      • clowngirl

        I can’t think how else he could get to the point of making such a statement.

        • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

          I’d be curious to see what your old group of Manhattan libertarians libertines would think of this unthinkable horror show, other than (presumably) trying to blame it on the government (somehow).

          • clowngirl

            (on his Facebook page) to tell the NY Times how to report the story. I asked if he was kidding and if he read the Times article and he didn’t reply.

            I can think of one who might suggest that the answer would be for the 11 year old to have been packing heat, or for her parents to exact lethal revenge,

            I expect most would be properly horrified. I’ve heard a couple weird libertarian opinions about the age of consent (one saying there should be none, another saying “at whatever age a girl starts menstruating” ) but never known any that were blatantly ok with rape. (Prostitution sure, regardless of whether the girl was forced into it which would – in those circumstances -make it effectively rape — but not rape where the force is applied directly by the assailant)

  • mustango

    You have to understand, from the liberal point of view, “ethics” with regard to rape means making sure that the girl gets a government-paid abortion if necessary. Because that’s always the most important thing.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      if she gets punished with a baby.

  • congressworksforus

    If doesn’t matter if she volunteered to lay there and take it and enjoyed it.

    She’s 11. It’s statutory rape. End of story.

  • mspector

    As an attorney who has defended people accused of despicable acts (which this certainly was), let me shed a little light from the foxholes.

    I too hated the idea of defending accused (note: “accused”) rapists until I actually defended one. Then I realized that it’s a lawyering job like any other: at the end of the day your job is to get the best possible result for your client. I’ll discuss what this has meant to me below.

    My principal objective is to make sure our adversarial system works. In our system, lawyers represent opposing sides and (only occasionally) something resembling the truth emerges from the contest.

    My first task is to test the evidence. My standard in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Here I have to be honest with myself and with my clients. I’m going to recommend very different strategies and tactics if I see major holes in the prosecution case than if I don’t.

    Attacking the victim in a rape case is sort of the platitude, but a good trial attorney rarely if ever does it unless s/he is CERTAIN that he can take the victim’s testimony apart. Otherwise, all you are doing is allowing the victim to give the jury all the gory details; the men on the jury think about their daughters and the women press their knees tightly together. In short, it’s usually a losing tactic. I’ve only done it once, in a case of nonviolent statutory rape, because the alleged victim could not provide anatomical details about my client she would certainly have known had events gone as she described. That defense was successful, not because the girl “asked for it” but because she truly could not verify the event.

    Assuming the event is verified with substantial evidence and I’m unable to impeach the DNA and other expert testimony, I’m left with figuring out damage control. And sometimes even that is impossible.

    And for the record, in cases where the only “defense” lies in attacking the victim’s character, the length of her skirts or her reputation for promiscuity I have told the potential client that I will not defend on that basis and I walk away.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      So what would you do if you were the court-appointed attorney in this? I wouldn’t envy you in the least if you were the public defender stuck having to fulfill the constitutional role here.

      • mspector

        But the task is the same. I have to represent my client within the bounds of zealous advocacy, which means that I still have to make a decision about what the best interests of my client are, and choose my ground. I also have to respect my obligations as an officer of the court.

        Let’s take this case just as a hypothetical. Let’s say that the charge is statutory rape. What is the defense? If the client actually had sexual relations of any type with a girl under the age of consent, he’s guilty. Period. The best I or any attorney can do is mitigate the penalty if possible.

        If the charges go further and allege violence, etc., then I have to examine the factual basis for those charges (as I write I only know what I’ve read, and I haven’t really followed it all that closely). Sometimes the broader charges make room for a plea bargain. And sometimes the attitude of the prosecution is such that you know you can’t do any worse if you try the case, so you try it. Yet and still, attacking the victim is in most cases simply a bad idea even in states where evidence of the victim’s character is admissible in a rape case.

        When all is said and done I still would have to follow my best legal judgment. That may mean that another attorney is assigned, it may mean that the client obtains private counsel. But I, at least, will not pose a defense that I do not believe in. That’s partly a matter of personal integrity, partly a matter of living up to my responsibilities as an officer of the court, and partly that if I do not believe in the defense I can never hope to convince anyone on the jury of it.

        I was taught early on about the “straight face test”: if you want to make an argument in court and are not sure of it, look at yourself in the mirror as you state it. If you cannot do so without laughing, fugeddaboutit.

        • Finrod

          I was taught early on about the ?straight face test?: if you want to make an argument in court and are not sure of it, look at yourself in the mirror as you state it. If you cannot do so without laughing, fugeddaboutit.

          I’ve heard this called the ‘giggle test’. Very useful rule of thumb.

  • nancylee

    has long ago abdicated any standards of common sense, decency or ethics. Their viewpoint (completely shaded by PC) is that the young men are not responsible because of their skin color, therefore they have to find some way to blame it on the victim, who inconveniently enough, is an 11 year old Hispanic girl.

    In the first place, she is too young to give legal consent even if she did “want” it, which I doubt, although to the degenerates at the Times I don’t think it matters. The assailants were black and therefore not responsible.

    I wonder if they even realize how condescending this sounds to anyone without their racial bias? Who cares what race the assailants were, or the victim for that matter? It was the crime that mattered — the assault on a child by a bunch of males who apparently thought they could get away with it.

    The fact that a bunch of liberals would try to excuse such behavior — by anyone! — says more about them than any words could.

  • rightwingmom52

    for years. Their attempts to legitimize their actions by any means necessary, is really no surprise. In doing so, they have raped the 11 year old girl all over again.

  • MsDollie

    11 year old ?She asked for it? victim is Hispanic …

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20042118-504083.html

    Local race baiter plays the ?Race Card? because all 18 perpetrators are Black …

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/gang-rape-charges-18-men-sparks-racial-tensions/story?id=13095476&page=1