A few weeks ago, there was a rape trial in West Virginia where the defence attorney took victim-blaming to phantasmagorically obscene heights. Here’s the abridged version [Source|HT]
A jury found Thomas H. Gravely, 31, of East Bank guilty of sexually assaulting Charleston prostitutes, despite a graphic argument by his defense attorney that women willing to sell themselves for sex cannot be raped…he [Gravely] confessed to picking up at least 15-20 prostitutes and holding a knife to their throats or choking them while he had sex with them.
“You cannot rape the willing,” ReBrook said. “They got in those automobiles with the intention of having sex for money.
“I would be horrified if any of the women in my life were raped, but I’m talking about decent, honorable women,” ReBrook said, and then dramatically raised his voice. “Not whores who have sex with many, many men for money.”
…”Finding this man guilty of rape lessens the dignity of every other woman,” ReBrook said. “What they have done is turn sex into something disgusting”…
“They are not like your wife, your girlfriend or your daughter,” he said. “They are street tramps. And what happened to them was, at least in part, their fault.”
At first, I had the natural revulsion, followed by a “why are we still living in the minus-a-millionth century?” reaction. It’s just so over the top — even from the perspective of a hypothetical attorney arguing the victim “had it coming”. Then I realised that this might ultimately be a positive story.
ReBrook chose this legal strategy because he thought Charleston, West Virginia really was living in the minus-a-millionth century. A few decades ago it might have well worked. I know there are plenty of places in the world where it will still work. But in this ordinary town from what Sarah Palin would have described as “real America”, ReBrook’s plan backfired. And spectacularly too. The fact that he overestimated the misogyny of the jury (and by so much) gives some hope yet.
But the most telling aspect is in the line I bolded. As Peter Singer argues in The Expanding Circle, moral progress is about bringing more and more beings into the ingroup — since we can commit atrocities against the outgroup so easily.
I think the reverse is also true: most cases of moral regress seek to dehumanise by drawing a sharp distinction between the ingroup (where you and the speaker are) and the outgroup. They try and contract the circle. It’s just so rare that someone has the chutzpah to put it so blatantly. As horrible as this example is, it’s important to recognise that any time anyone asks you to contract your circle (and sometimes it’s done in a way that’s very subtle and easy to miss), they are just pulling a slimier version of the ReBrook Gambit.
8 comments ↓
I used to do a joke saying “if you rape a prostitute shouldn’t you get arrented for shoplifting?”* That was a poor taste joke, intended to both shock and make people think.
I did not expect to see it used in a court of law.
There is a point about rape cases that I have been mulling over for a while: every defendant should have the best defense possible, but when a lawyer acting on his behalf oversteps the mark (seriously abusing witnesses, especially the victims) then is the lawyer not committing a crime? The victim cannot escape, cannot retaliate and only the judge has the power to rein him in. The most any judge ever does is to uphold an objection by the prosecution that he is badgering the witness.
There are cases when the victim actually says the trial was a worse ordeal then the crime. That cannot be right, ever.
* The actual point was that some prostitutes were claiming rape after men had had sex with them but then refused to pay – I’m not totally heartless!
When reading this story I actually saw people wondering whether the defendant can now appeal claiming that ReBrook stuffed up his defence so royally. However apparently you can’t appeal for incompetence if ReBrook is considered a generally competent lawyer (if anyone knows more please correct me).
Maybe I’ve seen too many episodes of Law and Order but I think a judge can find a lawyer in contempt including fining or jailing them.
Luckily for the victims they wouldn’t have been present during this closing arguments — but they still had to hear about it in the media.
[...] traditions ought to mean to us as non-believers. Mr Fridman, would you like to tell us all about The ReBrook Gambit? As Peter Singer argues in The Expanding Circle, moral progress is about bringing more and more [...]
Wow, that’s a really awful story (about the lawyer, the post was excellent). Funny this should come up and make you think of Peter Singer – I’d heard of the guy, but I had no idea that he argued for making the biggest in-group possible. My entry to this same symposium had a similar endpoint, he would have been a great source for getting there (note to self: fix that).
I guess that’s what I get for not staying current in my own field. I have to wonder, though, why even ivory tower philosophers still take deontology seriously. Or, at least more serious philosophers than biologists seem to take Creationism seriously. Or maybe there are just fewer good philosophers than good biologists. Anyway, great read!
Thanks. I wouldn’t get too worried about philosophers that seem to be prone to excesses — it comes with the territory. After all, only a philosopher would seriously consider other unlikely scenarios such as the brain in a vat — it’s only expected that some will go off the deep end with creationism.
Nothing that a good dose of Dennett (before food) can’t solve!
What area of philosophy are you in?
Argh… brains in vats… so useful, but so silly…
You think that’s crazy, one of my professors (name of Stewart) frequently uses “a pile of babies” to get thought experiments started. But then one of his students was discussing something with a different professor and wanted to give an arbitrary analogy of something, so he says, “OK, look, suppose there’s a pile of babies in the road…” The professor asks, “Wait, what?! Why is there a pile of babies in the road? Where are their parents? What’s going on here?” And the student mutters under his breath, “Curse you, Stewart!”
But yeah, Daniel Dennett is Santa Claus, and I just want him to listen to all the things I want for Christmas (a Cartesian flashlight, an ontological desert, one of Occam’s razors…).
My concentration was initially in logic, but then I thought I could make a splash in ethics, and now I’m kind of in “applied philosophy.” Y’know, trying to live well and all that. No, in all seriousness, I’m working as a quality consultant while I save up some money to finish my degree – I’m not officially in any area, and kinda don’t wanna have to pick one. Though it will probably be ethics, if this whole “biggest in-group” thing takes. We live in exciting times, my friend!
I don’t know if any of you care, but what ReBrook did is exactly what a defense attorney is supposed to do – lower the credibility of the witnesses and/or victims. Of course, when dealing with prostitutes (i.e. drug addicts who have sex with strangers for money), it’s not that hard to lower their credibility. For the record, Mr. ReBrook has an outstanding track record as a criminal defense attorney. However, when handed a bag of crap, such as this particular court-appointed client, there’s only so much that can be done. Even still, if you are ever accused of murder, ReBrook is the one man who has a true shot of getting a not-guilty verdict from a jury.
Whatever his record I don’t think you can deny that what he did here was a major blunder for his client. But thanks for sharing your views on prostitutes — it’s much-needed reminder on this post lest readers get too complacent about people’s attitudes. As a note, the jury shared neither your opinion nor your dehumanisation.
Leave a Comment