29
30

The Trouble with Teaching Rape Law (newyorker.com)

Hailanathema が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]AngryTarpon 75 ポイント76 ポイント  (37子コメント)

You want to know the trouble?

For at least some students, the classroom has become a potentially traumatic environment, and they have begun to anticipate the emotional injuries they could suffer or inflict in classroom conversation.

That. That is the fucking trouble. We all deal with all kinds of shit. I had a guy shot in the head in front of my apartment before I was in law school. Did you know that brain matter doesn't come out of clothes? I have seen case reports of dead 6 year olds, traumatically injured infants, 9 year old girls who were raped and had it filmed. And you know why? Because this shit happens. To ignore it is to deny reality. Either deal, or go to barber school.

[–]porkchop_d_clown 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Barber school?!? Heck no! What if the client has lice?!?

[–]ClaymoreMine 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I also present Monty Pythons the Barber as another possibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5yEz8g12fg

[–]shanedoth 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (19子コメント)

I'm not trying to discount your own experiences, but it is worth noting that different people respond differently to tragedy or trauma, so your own experience is only of limited value for making broad pronouncements.

I'm an Iraq veteran, and I've seen and experienced objectively traumatic events. Maybe for reasons of lower susceptibility or just plain luck, though, I don't have PTSD or anything close to that. One thing I don't do, though, is discount someone else's PTSD just because I may have experiences that are objectively scarier or more traumatic than whatever event caused someone else's PTSD.

For the context of law school, there are plenty of legal careers one can have while steering clear of sexual crimes. I imagine sex crimes don't come up frequently for attorneys working in commercial law or regulatory law, for example. Is a person looking for a career in securities regulation or tax law supposed to avoid that entirely just because their school requires 1Ls to take criminal law?

I'm mostly puzzled by the doctrinal necessity of covering rape in a required course, but then I have a lot of thoughts on the pedagogical process of law school in general (and 1L classes in particular).

[–]Nesnesitelna 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm mostly puzzled by the doctrinal necessity of covering rape in a required course, but then I have a lot of thoughts on the pedagogical process of law school in general (and 1L classes in particular).

Two things:

  1. Should I be exempt from Torts if, say, I had a particularly traumatizing car accident that killed a parent of mine as a child?

  2. As a slightly less relevant point, Criminal Law is not a required class at all law schools.

[–]porkchop_d_clown 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (16子コメント)

You don't learn calculus by avoiding math class.

Your muscles don't become stronger by avoiding exercise.

You don't learn to cope with trauma by avoiding uncomfortable subjects.

[–]shanedoth 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (15子コメント)

You don't learn to cope with trauma by avoiding uncomfortable subjects.

Are you taking the position that avoiding PTSD, anxiety, or depression are trainable in the same way that muscles can be made stronger through exercise?

[–]AngryTarpon 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (10子コメント)

That would be the mainstream view of cognitive behavioural therapy, the mainline treatment of PTSD..

[–]shanedoth 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then the followup question, naturally, is to ask whether law school classrooms would be the appropriate place and method for administering such treatment.

[–]Meistermalkav 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope, simply ask for the spoecialisation, and if it is not a super specialised law, like animal divorce law, hold a screening test.

Those that have triggers, or such things, are given materials, and the adress of a counselor to cope with them, and have to pass the entrance exam before they can study, those who don't have any triggers can progress.

That way, those with problems get the help they need, and the public gets lawyers that are not uncomfortable using harsh language when arguing for their client.

[–]kublakhan1816 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This seems like a strange response to me. It seems like you're saying the correct way to deal with trauma is more exposure.

I practice in an area where I deal with victims of domestic violence on a daily basis. We refer to it as secondary trauma. The correct way to deal with trauma is positive coping mechanisms. You exercise, eat right, get plenty of sleep. Go to therapy. Debrief with others who are doing the same kind of work.

[–]koronicus -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

CBT is not about letting third parties dictate the terms of your therapeutic process. It neither requires nor advocates unfiltered exposure to traumatic triggers.

[–]porkchop_d_clown 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Classrooms are hardly "unfiltered".

[–]Revoran 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They're pretty unfiltered compared to a therapy session. And that's the way it should be. The idea of not covering certain subjects in a university course just because it might make some people anxious is ridiculous.

At the most, you would give a warning before the lecture/class that sensitive topics will be covered, and if anyone wants to leave they should do so now, but they will be marked absent.

Would you stop talking about bridge building in engineering class just because someone might be scared of heights? Or maybe they know someone who jumped off a bridge? Of course not. It needs to be discussed. And in a class on criminal law it is essential to cover violent crimes.

[–]AngryTarpon 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No. CBT is about the fact that sometimes being an adult means that you are exposed to your triggers whether you want to be or not, and developing strategies to deal with that like and adult.

[–]koronicus -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, developing strategies in controlled environments in preparation for future real-world situations. Not developing them while you're currently underprepared and in the presence of triggers. Knowing whether or not you're prepared to handle something requires a level of reasoned introspection that the casual observer (ie, redditors and probably one's professor) can't match and thus has no business weighing in on.

[–]porkchop_d_clown 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sorry, I shouldn't have been quite so flip.

Yes, you had a traumatic event and yes many people do - but the vast majority of these kids did not. They're entitled, spoiled, and no different from the ones who demanded their exams be postponed so they could go protest in Ferguson.

[–]shanedoth 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, you're touching on the reason why I think this thread is a little bit harsh, and a bit too dismissive of what I think are legitimate concerns about how to teach the substantive law of rape. I think most people in this thread are letting the story of Columbia accommodating sensitive students influence their comments on this article, which I think are completely separate topics with no bearing on one another.

I think the tradeoffs are different for teaching evidence, which I actually think should be necessary (even if most law schools do not require it) and I think should necessarily cover evidence/procedural issues concerning sexual crimes and torts. I think that talking trial procedure and evidence is less direct of a discussion about rape, and I actually think it's important to the education of a lawyer in a way that doesn't apply to discussion of either MPC or common law definitions of rape (in a world where everyone is going to have jurisdiction-specific statutes and case law defining the offense). Plus, an evidence course (at least from my view of law school) tends to be less inviting of student discussion on hypothetical rape examples, because the hypotheticals in an evidence class tend to focus on what should happen in the courtroom, not a God's eye view of what happened in the bedroom.

As another example, I took a few courses of procedure and evidence relating to digital/networked communications and remote third party storage. There's simply no way to teach real-world Fourth Amendment, wiretap statutes, or electronic record statutes without running into all the child pornography case law. To me, again, that's difference because that's teaching "real" law in the real world, not the ALI construct that is the MPC or the common law that has very little resemblance to (at least in my jurisdiction) the statutory criminal schemes in the real world.

So I'm not convinced that substantive rape law is a necessary part of the 1L curriculum. Many schools don't require it, which indicates that many people go on to become lawyers without ever having taken 1L criminal law, and many more go on without ever having covered common law or MPC rape definitions.

My actual position might be a little bit more nuanced than what appears to be what some people in this thread believe it to be, but I stand by each of the comments I made in this thread: I don't think 1Ls need to learn rape law so I'd discourage it from being part of the required 1L curriculum; I don't think substantive rape law is necessary at all for one to become a lawyer; and I don't think that one can fairly say "well I've gone through some shit, so other people with trauma should just toughen up."

[–]porkchop_d_clown 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pretty much, yes.

[–]daktardoom 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Isn't that the very nature of 'exposure therapy'? The way to deal with things like agorafobia is precisely by exposing yourself gradually to situations you would otherwise find extremely uncomfortable. Over time however, you adapt, and benefit from that.

[–]finderdj 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Edit: Forgot I was in r/law, I thought this was in /r/news or something. Deleted huge silly paragraph explaining stuff that you clearly know

The Bar Exam and CLEs (And the Model Rules/State Professional Rules) require a wide breadth because lawyers are expected to be able to take any case that falls in their lap - we have a civic duty and martial tradition, or so I was informed by my law professors. We're not required to take 1L crimlaw just to pass the bar, we're expected to be able to competently practice it if we trip over a criminal client on our way from our commerical law office door to the car.

[–]StrongBlackNeckbeard -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I very much agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate: What if you don't have any intention of becoming a criminal lawyer?

I understand that crim is on the bar, but the elements of rape are pretty easy to grasp without going into too detailed of hypos. I have friends who are studying to be environmental lawyers or in-house counsel for a corporation who would be perfectly content to never open a criminal law book again.

Discussing rape law in class can lead to really interesting public policy discussions, but doesn't do much in the way of helping to grasp core criminal law concepts.

[–]davec79 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (0子コメント)

but the elements of rape are pretty easy to grasp without going into too detailed of hypos.

Except the nature of law is in the unexpected, or the grey areas between what gets checked in the yes or no column. This is specifically addressed in the article:

When I teach rape law, I don’t dwell on cases in which everyone will agree that the defendant is guilty. Instead, I focus on cases that test the limits of the rules, and that fall near the rapidly shifting line separating criminal conduct from legal sex.

And that's 90% of what most lawyers deal with. They come to us, because their situation is weird compared to what usually happens. It's rare I can tell someone "You're 100% wrong, just pay them the money"

[–]thepulloutmethod 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would argue that life in general, not just criminal law practice, doesn't have a trigger warning. Reality doesn't adjust to your specific sensitivities. Might as well face your fears and deal with them earlier rather than later.

[–]Nesnesitelna 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have friends who are studying to be environmental lawyers or in-house counsel for a corporation who would be perfectly content to never open a criminal law book again.

I'm going in to criminal prosecution and I'd be more than happy to never read another word about Chapter 11 plans, but I don't begrudge my law school for teaching the subject in a thorough manner.

[–]GoldenBull 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What if you're an undergrad with no intention of being a scientist or mathematician? Have fun telling the school you won't be taking either and that you still expect a Bachelor's.