Are we really getting this argument in a sexual assault case in 2013? Frankly, it is enough to make me wish that the defendant AND his attorney could get the needle.
This is the Steubenville high school football player rape case, in which a group of young men had their way sexually with a girl who was so unresponsive that they labeled her as dead and shouted that sh was "so raped" -- and then posted video about it on the internet, showing them carrying her into a bedroom. So how does the lawyer for one of the accused defend his client? By blaming the victim!
So how does Walter Madison, the attorney of one of the alleged perpetrators respond?
"She didn't affirmatively say no."
"The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that's because there was consent," he said.
He claims that the sex was consensual...even though the girl is involved is underage and has no memory of what occurred. She and her parents only found out what happened after the cell phone videos surfaced on the internet some months later.
Because of the time lag between the crime and its discovery, there's also no way of knowing whether the victim was excessively drunk or whether her drink was spiked with Rohypnol, GHB or some of the other substances used for the purpose of rendering someone defenseless for this kind of assault.Nor does it matter, really.
Got that? "She didn't affirmatively say no"
May I point out that she also didn't affirmatively consent, either -- and that the evidence is pretty clear that she was incapable of doing either. Apparently Walter Madison, a member of the bar in Ohio, holds to some antiquated notions of what constitutes sexual assault - notions that are more in keeping with notions of sharia jurisprudence than with the laws of the United States.
Actually, that isn't fair. Madison and his client clearly operate on the basis of a much older code as to what is acceptable in terms of male and female sexuality.