encourages you to do so. It doesn’t matter if you’re the lowest ranking private in the army, if anybody of a higher rank tells you to do something morally or legally repugnant, you have the right and the obligation to tell them to fuck off.”
“Did you check Lydia’s IQ yet?”
“I wasn’t aware she has one.”
“Ninety-two. So here we have a young girl with a lousy education, below average intelligence, a backcountry rural upbringing, poor self-image, possibly a few impulse control issues, thrown into something much bigger than she could possibly understand.”
“Are we talking about her or you?”
“Screw-off, Drummond.”
Two points for me. “Katherine, I understand what you’re saying but those fall under the heading of extenuating and mitigating circumstances, issues you raise after a conviction. Base your defense on those concerns, and Lydia’s going to spend her old age crapping granola in Leavenworth latrines.”
“Please expand on your reasoning.”
“According to the testimonies, these activities spanned over a month-long period of fun and games—a full month of Lydia, June, and Andrea entering the prison at night and playing hide-the-willy with the prisoners. It wasn’t a one-night splurge fueled by alcohol or drugs, or a bout of temporary, collective insanity, nor was it some sudden emotional lapse. It was premeditated, prolonged, deliberate.” I looked at Katherine and noted, “The only relevant issue was whether they knew right from wrong.”
“And you believe they did?”
“I believe all young girls are taught not to pee on men’s faces. They are taught that penises are not toys. They are taught to keep their clothes on in front of males, except when in the presence of lovers and gynecologists. Now imagine, if you will, that these were male guards in a female prison, and they engaged in the same kinds of kinky, degrading, sexually aggressive behavior. In that instance, do you think you could convince seven reasonable men and women that a slightly below average intelligence and a low self-image justified acting out such impulses?”
“Is that what you think?”
“What matters is not what I think , what matters is how it will be pitched and received in a courtroom. And I believe we’re going to discover even more interesting perversities, more fantasies indulged in the dead of the night. Unless you have some reason to believe that Lydia fails the M’Naghten qualifications, I suggest you drop that line of defense.”
The M’Naghten standard, as Katherine well knew, is the old English criteria that remains the foundation for modern legal reasoning regarding moral responsibility. It has two parts: did the defendant cognitively understand that what he or she was doing was wrong; and, two, was the defendant so mentally impaired, by mental disease or profound defect, that he or she lacked the mental gravity to select right from wrong?
Following that line of thought, I asked Katherine, “Has she been psychiatrically examined yet?”
“She’s scheduled to be tested the day after tomorrow.”
“By us, or by the government?”
“Tomorrow’s the government turn. The next day is ours. Dr. Theodore Erickson is coming up from New York City.”
“Is he good?”
“Better than good, Sean. He’ll be our expert witness. I’m confident he’s better than anything the army can drag up on the stand.”
I looked hard at Katherine. “Here’s a good piece of advice. Don’t assume all army lawyers are dumb knuckle-draggers and don’t assume all army docs are incompetent quacks. It’s no good for our client.”
Katherine evaded this subject, perhaps out of consideration to the only army lawyer within earshot. She said, “I have scheduled appointments with a military prison consultant and June Johnston. Want to come along?”
I was tired of reading, and ready to begin meeting the characters directly involved in this case. I got up and followed Katherine out to the Toyota
“Did you check Lydia’s IQ yet?”
“I wasn’t aware she has one.”
“Ninety-two. So here we have a young girl with a lousy education, below average intelligence, a backcountry rural upbringing, poor self-image, possibly a few impulse control issues, thrown into something much bigger than she could possibly understand.”
“Are we talking about her or you?”
“Screw-off, Drummond.”
Two points for me. “Katherine, I understand what you’re saying but those fall under the heading of extenuating and mitigating circumstances, issues you raise after a conviction. Base your defense on those concerns, and Lydia’s going to spend her old age crapping granola in Leavenworth latrines.”
“Please expand on your reasoning.”
“According to the testimonies, these activities spanned over a month-long period of fun and games—a full month of Lydia, June, and Andrea entering the prison at night and playing hide-the-willy with the prisoners. It wasn’t a one-night splurge fueled by alcohol or drugs, or a bout of temporary, collective insanity, nor was it some sudden emotional lapse. It was premeditated, prolonged, deliberate.” I looked at Katherine and noted, “The only relevant issue was whether they knew right from wrong.”
“And you believe they did?”
“I believe all young girls are taught not to pee on men’s faces. They are taught that penises are not toys. They are taught to keep their clothes on in front of males, except when in the presence of lovers and gynecologists. Now imagine, if you will, that these were male guards in a female prison, and they engaged in the same kinds of kinky, degrading, sexually aggressive behavior. In that instance, do you think you could convince seven reasonable men and women that a slightly below average intelligence and a low self-image justified acting out such impulses?”
“Is that what you think?”
“What matters is not what I think , what matters is how it will be pitched and received in a courtroom. And I believe we’re going to discover even more interesting perversities, more fantasies indulged in the dead of the night. Unless you have some reason to believe that Lydia fails the M’Naghten qualifications, I suggest you drop that line of defense.”
The M’Naghten standard, as Katherine well knew, is the old English criteria that remains the foundation for modern legal reasoning regarding moral responsibility. It has two parts: did the defendant cognitively understand that what he or she was doing was wrong; and, two, was the defendant so mentally impaired, by mental disease or profound defect, that he or she lacked the mental gravity to select right from wrong?
Following that line of thought, I asked Katherine, “Has she been psychiatrically examined yet?”
“She’s scheduled to be tested the day after tomorrow.”
“By us, or by the government?”
“Tomorrow’s the government turn. The next day is ours. Dr. Theodore Erickson is coming up from New York City.”
“Is he good?”
“Better than good, Sean. He’ll be our expert witness. I’m confident he’s better than anything the army can drag up on the stand.”
I looked hard at Katherine. “Here’s a good piece of advice. Don’t assume all army lawyers are dumb knuckle-draggers and don’t assume all army docs are incompetent quacks. It’s no good for our client.”
Katherine evaded this subject, perhaps out of consideration to the only army lawyer within earshot. She said, “I have scheduled appointments with a military prison consultant and June Johnston. Want to come along?”
I was tired of reading, and ready to begin meeting the characters directly involved in this case. I got up and followed Katherine out to the Toyota
Similar Books
