Do sex offenders really deserve the best possible defense?

Many of you, along with me, read the blog Ethics Alarm written by fellow blogger Jack Marshall. The best description of my relationship with Jack is love/hate, and today the love is shining through.

The post is titled, "The 'Too handsome to rape' defense," and I gotta admit, I cringed at the title.                                                          
My position on rape is clear: it is a crime and deserves vigorous prosecution and imposition of punishment. I don't  see rape as an "iffy" issue. I subscribe to the theory of, "If you don't think it's rape when it's happening, it--I'll allow a probably--isn't." And the age of consent issue between an individual over it and one under it is simple also: I do not advocate anyone breaking any state or federal law, but at the same time, I will fight until I have no breath in my body to stop the criminalization of consensual sexual activity between two under-age teens.

Now that I've said enough to bring the radical feminists down on my head--again--I'll explain why I'm lovin' Jack today.

Within that post with the title that made me cringe, his primary purpose is to explain why the young man in question--and by extension, everyone--is entitled to, and his attorneys are obligated to produce, the most vigorous legitimate defense possible, and he goes on to explain why, "He's too hot to need to rape," is a legitimate defense.

He says this:

Lawyers are ethically obligated to advance whatever non-frivolous arguments and theories that are most likely to achieve their clients’ objectives, whether it is avoiding prison or rationalizing the crimes of the Japanese army. That is their job and societal function, and it is essential to our avoiding a jack-boot system where any of us could be thrown in jail by popular opinion or government edict. The laws are there to be used by every citizen, even when the citizen’s objectives are unethical, or when the citizen is a cur. 

Our rights are all protected well by this principle, and it’s high time we stopped bitching about it.

After my heart stopped palpitating, I quietly joyed in the words.

The cause for which I advocate, the cause that fills this blog, is not a popular one. It insists that once a sex offender has served his punishment, no matter how horrific the crime, if he expresses, through words, actions, or simply lifestyle choices, remorse and an intent to sin no more and a desire to show he is rehabilitated, that he must be given the opportunity to do just that, that this is what will best serve public safety, and that the laws that govern his comings and goings must be based on facts and evidence as to what facilitates that and what hinders it. This stance draws the sharpest criticism and most hostile reaction toward me and my fellow activists as well as the defense attorneys who are seen as "getting baby-rapers" off and setting them free to continue their pillaging.

The fact that the term "baby-raper" could be accurately applied to the tiniest, tiniest fraction of all who commit sexual offenses does not for a moment deter those who use it against everyone who is perceived of "supporting sex offenders," including their attorneys.

And so today Jack Marshall has shown us clearly why they are required to support their clients as vigorously as possible. In so doing, we are all protected.

Thank you, Jack; tomorrow I may hate what you write, but today, you're my main man.