 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Re: DEXTER "Television Without Pity" housewives discussion. S02E06 SPOILERS by Mischief Maker 11/17/2007, 8:10am PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
Fussbett wrote:CabernetKitty wrote: Allow me the act as alternate universe Zseni for a moment and comment on the damndest thing I've been noticing in my evidence class lately. It's being taught part time by Madison's top ranked defense attorney and he just loves setting up moral quandries for us to sort through. Like when we were learning relevance (That which makes a fact or issue more or less probable) and he discussed a case from years ago where a girl accused a member of the basketball team of raping her in the apartment. Was it relevant that she invited him over? "Yeah" said a guy as he unknowingly placed his head on the chopping block. "NOOOOOO!!!!!!" came the deluge of comments from nearly every girl in the class. "What if I told you she answered the door in a see-through nightie?" "NOOOOOOO!!!!!!" One chick actually said, "some girls are just flakey!" "But I'm not asking if it's probative, just is it relevant?" "NOOOOOO!!!!" And the thing that's struck me about all this is how incredibly casual everyone is about things ranging from leaving a guy mangled and crippled in a drunken driveby to premeditative murder of family members "A guy tells his wife, 'I just killed mom (Moom?) and bured her in the backyard,' does that fall under spousal privilege?" A general chuckle goes through the room and unanimous agreement. But if the subject ever turns sexual, even the same story, just replace "miurderer" with "rapist," and everyone gets really really sensitive. This last week he was making analogy between lawyer-client privilege and doctor-patient privilege and he told us a true story about a psychologist who had a patient who was training to become a child psychologist who told him that he was a pedophile and was training to be a child psychologist to get close to kids. The psychologist says nothing and the patient lives up to his threat and raped 20 kids in the years that follow. He puts it to the class, "Did the doctor make the correct decision by keeping his mouth shut?" This time everyone, men and women, with the sole exception of me, responded "NOOOOOOO!!!!!" Guys were saying things like, "The doctor privilege and lawyer privilege is totally different. A client needs to be able to trust their lawyer and be completely truthful with them!" Then I put my head on the chopping block and say, "wait a minute! What if this is instead a guy getting an HIV test that comes back positive. He says to the doctor, 'No I don't use protection, yes, I'm going to stay sexually active,' he's putting people's lives at stake! Does that make it a smart policy to let doctors out patients who prove HIV positive?" A visibly pregnant woman responds, "That's different! It's between consenting adults!" And I wonder what that says about us as a society how people, despite being so incredibly sensitive about sexual issues, take incredibly grisly murders with a "psh." I guess the main reason this bothers me so much is because, due to limited resources and the screening process, only the most ridiculous of cases reach my desk at the innocence project. And of those cases the absolute most ridiculous. The ones where you say, "fuck the new evidence, how could the jury be so stupid as to buy that bullshit evidence in the original trial?" They weren't murder trials. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
