Skip to main content

Judge that defends men!

 

Case #1:

Counselor 1: Your Honor, my client, Mr. Dawson, has been the victim of abuse by his girlfriend, Miss Davis. We have photographic evidence of the injuries he sustained and a video showing her brandishing a weapon.

Judge: Please approach the bench. (Whispered conference between judge and lawyers) Very well, let's proceed with the evidence.

Counselor 1: (To the judge) We call Mr. Dawson to the stand. (Mr. Dawson testifies, describing the abuse) We also request the video be admitted into evidence.

Judge: Very well. (To the jury) Please note the video is not being entered to inflame but to establish the nature of the threat.

Counselor 2: (Cross-examines Mr. Dawson, focusing on his cheating allegations)

Judge: The jury will disregard the defendant's alleged infidelity unless you provide substantial evidence.

Counselor 2: (Fumbles, unable to provide further evidence)

Judge: Jury, how do you find Miss Davis?

Jury: We find Miss Davis guilty.

Judge: Miss Davis, I hereby sentence you to 10 years' imprisonment. Mr. Dawson, the court grants your request for a restraining order against Miss Davis.



Case #2:

Counselor 1: Your Honor, my client, Mrs. Clark, has been charged with the statutory rape of a 14-year-old boy and is pregnant with his child.

Judge: (To Counselor 2) I must caution you, Counselor. Any victim-blaming or inappropriate arguments may result in a contempt charge.

Counselor 2: (Nervously) Yes, Your Honor. We merely suggest... given the circumstances... the boy's family should be considered for support.

Counselor 1: (Outraged) Your Honor, this is outrageous! The law is clear: minors cannot consent.

Judge: I concur. The boy's youth and the power dynamic prevent true consent. Mrs. Clark will face appropriate sentencing, and child support is not applicable.

Counselor 2: (Mumbling) But, Your Honor…

Judge: Enough, Counselor. The court will not condone or mitigate statutory rape based on the perpetrator's gender or appearance. Mrs. Clark, you are remanded into custody pending sentencing.



Case #3:

Counselor 1: Your Honor, this case pertains to the tragic deaths of three minors at the hands of their mother, who then took her own life. The father survives.

Judge: (Sighs) Very well, proceed.

Counselor 2: While the event is undeniably horrific, we request the court consider the mother's history of abuse and trauma.

Judge: Would you propose the same mitigation if the genders were reversed?

Counselor 2: (Pauses) ...No, Your Honor.

Judge: Precisely. The court cannot excuse the taking of innocent life based on the perpetrator's gender. Appropriate support and services will be made available to the surviving father. (Bangs gavel) Case closed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

access denied, because your pain isn't "severe" enough to care!!

  When “Not Severe Enough” Means No Help: The Cruelty of Our Healthcare System I was driving for Uber one day, giving a ride to a woman who needed help as she was in a lot of pain and misery, going from one motel to another, trying to get home and everything. Somewhere between the traffic lights, she started telling me her story as she cried her heart out. She told me about the people she’s lost, friends, family members, people she cared about deeply. About her own health struggles and the endless search for help that never came. About sitting in waiting rooms, calling doctors, begging for treatment, only to be told again and again that her condition wasn’t severe enough . That phrase— not severe enough —still haunts me. Because it means denied care , it means ignored pain , it means forgotten humanity . This isn’t just one person’s story. It’s the story of millions. Of people living with chronic illness, disabilities, mental health struggles, and daily pain that doesn’t fit...
Post a Comment
Read more

defund the police? bad idea with good intention.

  How to Ruin a Good Idea in Three Words or Less: The “Defund the Police” Chronicles By [Your Name] Ah yes, 2020. The year everything was on fire—literally and metaphorically—and someone, somewhere, thought, “Hey, you know what this moment of national panic needs? A slogan that sounds like we want to throw every cop into the sun.” Enter: DEFUND. THE. POLICE. Was the goal nuanced and thoughtful? Yes. Was the branding the equivalent of giving nuance a lobotomy and shoving it on Twitter? Also yes.  The Intent Was Pure. Like a Labrador in a Protest Vest. Let’s be clear: the people who came up with “Defund the Police” weren’t sitting in a cave plotting the downfall of society. They had a solid point: Maybe armed officers shouldn’t be responding to mental health crises. Maybe we could reduce crime by addressing poverty, addiction, and homelessness . Maybe we shouldn’t give local PDs more military gear than a Marvel villain. That’s not crazy. That’s just common s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Smash the patriarchy? Start with yourself!

  Patriarchy. I don't have anything positive to add.   Because there are a lot of problems when it comes to “smashing the patriarchy.” Patriarchy, at its root, is a system that rigidly defines gender roles and values men for strength and power while dismissing their emotional and human needs. They want to smash the patriarchy, but they have no idea what it even is. Because apparently people’s perception of patriarchy is that men are bad, and no man is ever good or a victim of anything, and that no woman could ever do bad. They want men to open up about their feelings, but when they do, they mock them. They use their pain against them. When they take their life, they wish for more men to take their life. The concern I heard was that patriarchy tells men never to cry and to bottle up their emotions, yet the very people who want to smash the patriarchy are contributing that same thing. They don’t realize that they ARE the patriarchy that they want to hit. So maybe they should...
Post a Comment
Read more