No, seriously: Can we do this?

From Rainbow Girl:

I propose adding an “asshole or not” section the the LSAT in order to prevent morons like this from entering the profession. Basic questions, like “Your country has a law that states that 10-year olds cannot consent to sex. Therefore, can a judge rule that a ten-year old consented to sex?” can be added to see if applicants understand simple logic in addition to complex logic. For every wrong answer, points will be deducted by striking the applicant’s head with a rubber chicken. With a brick in it.

It was a while ago that an Australian judge ruled that a ten-year-old aboriginal girl who was gang-raped by nine men “probably” consented. I honestly wish I could say that I still found this surprising, which is why I often say nothing at all, but seriously: there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what is actually in the law and what happens in sexual violence cases in every single country in the world.

If you’ve read the post below, you may have noted that my vocabulary has maybe shifted a bit again…I guess this kind of thing is why, because words beyond “what the fuck is up with that?” completely fail me.


2 thoughts on “No, seriously: Can we do this?

  1. belledame222 says:

    I like it. Basic moral/soul check.

  2. purtek says:

    But with bricks. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s