Allan Stokke is not a monster
Feministing.com has a rather disingenuous post about Allan Stokke, father of Alison Stokke:
After we posted a link to the story about Alison Stokke, the high-school track athlete who has been unwillingly turned into an internet sex object, sharp-eyed reader Evan emailed with the observation that Stokke's father is the same guy who earlier this year defended a cop who jerked off on a stripper during a routine traffic stop. “She got what she wanted,” Al Stokke said, of the stripper. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”
I'm not going to defend his words, because I totally disagree with them. But Feministing is entirely unfair to the man. Importantly, he is a defense attorney. He has a job, and his job is to defend people in a court of law. We cannot use his words in the context of defending the accused as a window into his own personal thinking. Defense attorneys are a necessary component of the legal system, as every accused person deserves representation before the courts in our country. Once hired as counsel, he has a moral responsibility to defend his client to the best of his abilities. It is simply not his job to decide the guilt or innocence of his client—rather, this responsibility is given to the juror-peers of the accused in our legal system.
The final few thoughts from the blog are given below:
From his previous comments, he seems to desire a world in which reprehensible treatment of women (sexual assault, harassment, rape) is a-OK. But maybe, just maybe, his views will change now that he is forced to consider the fact that his own flesh and blood -- his wife, his sister, his mother, his daughter -- could be a victim of that violence.
Simply because Allan Stokke has defended criminals in the court doesn't mean that he sides with them. Such a vicious and personal ad hominem attack against a defense attorney shows a sad misunderstanding of the judicial system.
UPDATE: Allison Stokke is a freshman here at Berkeley.
Comments
Came across your link by googling "Allan Stokke" and felt like contributing: The manner in which Allan Stokke "defends" his clients shows a blatant disregard for justice, in my opinion. In the case with the stripper, he managed to convince a jury that the fact that this cop had run the license plates of nine other strippers from the same club was just a coincidence, whereas the idea that a stripper always wants to manipulate men through sex even in off hours made perfect sense. He routinely uses vicious personal attacks on the plaintiff (see also: the infamous Orange County gang rape case), perpetuating the idea that sexual women can't be sexually assaulted. I believe as much as anyone that the accused have a right to attorneys who will defend them to the best of their abilities. But I vehemently disagree that Allan Stokke had a "moral obligation" to convince a jury that any woman's sexual history cancels her right to consent, which he has done or tried in at least two cases that I know of.
Regarding this: "We cannot use his words in the context of defending the accused as a window into his own personal thinking. " He also defends this idea outside the courtroom, even after David Park was acquitted. Here's a link: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/readerrebuttals/article_1575149.php . To get an idea of all the facts he disregards as coincidences: http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/ is a big summary of the case.
I believe, as you do, that defense lawyers should not be judged for defending their clients as best they can. I also believe, after having followed the Haidl gang rape case and this one, that while Allan Stokke may not be a monster (who am I to judge?), he's pretty damn close.
Posted by: Andi | July 6, 2007 11:42 AM
Thanks for your response, Andi! I admit to knowing little about the cases; my comments reflect only my reaction to the post at Feministing.
Your use of the word justice implies you think the accused is guilty. It's worth remembering that justice could also be served by persuading twelve jurors of an innocent person's innocence.
I can only reiterate that it is not the defense attorney's job to seek justice but to defend his or her client. It is the jurors' collective responsibility to seek justice, and the judge's role is to maintain an environment consistent with the execution of that justice.
I agree that 'a sexual woman always deserves it' does not follow, but if you suspect a guilty man went free, then you should be blaming an incompetent jury who decided the verdict or judge for allowing bad evidence.
Defense attorneys defend the accused using any type of persuasive logic allowed by the courts, regardless of guilt or innocence. On the whole, I think that is a good thing.
Posted by: hch | July 6, 2007 2:03 PM
I am looking for a general profile of Allison Stokke: date of birth, weight, height, family members names, UC Berkeley News and any other info you can provide: send it to: pointed@earthlink.net
By the way I think in general the people talking about her on the web are fans and not pervs or stalkers. I think her father needs to relax and have a look at how Kournikova became famous and very rich.
Posted by: Frank Riley | January 4, 2008 3:12 PM