![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI don't know quite what to make of this.
The recent flap about the rape case in Illinois, where the judge wanted to force the complaintant to watch a videotape of the event; which she says she has no memory of, because she was blackout drunk, because the defense claimed it would jog her memory.
Ok. I think the odds of it being probative were small, but if the judge decided the arguments were persuasive, and so allowed the thing, then she was compelled to watch.
So far so good.
But in the various too and fro-ing I saw lots of people making the arguments that the forcing her to watch the tape wasn't just something which a judge might acede to, but was in fact imperative.
One person argued that it never should have gone to trail, but she ought to have had counselling instead.
I waded into a few of those, with some snark, and what I know of procedure and evidence.
Two of those the person said they agreed with me, as though I hadn't just said they were wrong, one of them (a lawyer, who confessed he didn't really know anything about the case, but when did that stop a good argument...?) said I was right, on everything (even the legal stuff, which while I might be more familiar than most layman, it's not my profession, just an interest).
I don't know what I'm doing... if my snark is dead, or I have (at least on this issue) managed to be both so smooth, and persuasive, that the people I am ripping into not only don't care, but they don't notice.
The real annoyance is I don't think they've really changed their mind (esp. the one who thinks that there was a rape, but that prosecuting it would be bad) but I can't see any way to really go back and address the things I still think them wrong about.
The recent flap about the rape case in Illinois, where the judge wanted to force the complaintant to watch a videotape of the event; which she says she has no memory of, because she was blackout drunk, because the defense claimed it would jog her memory.
Ok. I think the odds of it being probative were small, but if the judge decided the arguments were persuasive, and so allowed the thing, then she was compelled to watch.
So far so good.
But in the various too and fro-ing I saw lots of people making the arguments that the forcing her to watch the tape wasn't just something which a judge might acede to, but was in fact imperative.
One person argued that it never should have gone to trail, but she ought to have had counselling instead.
I waded into a few of those, with some snark, and what I know of procedure and evidence.
Two of those the person said they agreed with me, as though I hadn't just said they were wrong, one of them (a lawyer, who confessed he didn't really know anything about the case, but when did that stop a good argument...?) said I was right, on everything (even the legal stuff, which while I might be more familiar than most layman, it's not my profession, just an interest).
I don't know what I'm doing... if my snark is dead, or I have (at least on this issue) managed to be both so smooth, and persuasive, that the people I am ripping into not only don't care, but they don't notice.
The real annoyance is I don't think they've really changed their mind (esp. the one who thinks that there was a rape, but that prosecuting it would be bad) but I can't see any way to really go back and address the things I still think them wrong about.
