Allison Stokke's father is a scumbag “She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”

I don't see why your opinion of her situation has changed because of what you have learned about her father. I mean why does this guy being a scumbag (if he actually is) make you any less sympathetic for her? Also, wearing a track uniform at a track meet is not dressing like a tramp.

Well . . . you may be jumping the gun about Mr. Stokke. The charge of "blaming the victim" assumes that there was a victim; that was a matter of dispute in the stripper/cop case. Except to the extent that rape shield laws prohibit it, it's not inappropriate for the defense attorney to introduce evidence and argument about the character, background, and credibility of the accuser in a sexual assault case. In fact, it might constitute ineffective assistance of counsel not to do so in a case such as this. It certainly sounds as though his client was a very bad, sleazy cop (actually, ex-cop), but Stokke's in-court statements and cross-examination questions weren't necessarily improper.

As for the child molestation case, the question "Where was she when I was 13?" was Stokke's characterization of social views about adult women who sexually assault boys. He was probably right about that. Whether that should warrant a lesser sentence is matter of considerable debate.

I certainly don't like what he said in representing his sleazy clients. But to some extent, it comes with the territory when you represent criminal defendants.

Avocados Number wrote:

As for the child molestation case, the question "Where was she when I was 13?" was Stokke's characterization of social views about adult women who sexually assault boys. He was probably right about that. Whether that should warrant a lesser sentence is matter of considerable debate.

I don't know anyone who thinks Stokke's statement about molesting an 11 year old is "probably right."

The irony here IS rather (perversely) entertaining.

At the risk of incurring your well-known wrath, I suggest that you read the context of the statement more carefully:

"Stokke, to be fair, wasn't quoting his own feelings (necessarily), but was summing up what he says are studies of the impact on victims of female-on-male molestations. However crude the statement, that is the prevailing sentiment, Stokke was saying."

Stokke's father is despicable. I don't care if he is an attorney who is just doing his job. He claerly has no idea the social, emotional and psychological impact that a 29 year woman having sex with an 11 year old kid does.

Think about this the other way around -an 11 yr girl and 29 yr man - disgucting. Just because male sexual perversion is better understood witin the judicial system does not make the female sexual predator any less serious.

The age of consent exists for very good reasons. The fact that a young boy might say it ws consentual is irrelevant. I once counselled a 9 yr old boy who was in love with his 35 yr old teacher who had groomed him for three years before the sex began. He believed the sex was consentual - unfortunately the power imbalance in the relationship means we have consent ages to help adults know where some appropriate boundaries are.

Mr Stokke needs to have a real soul search before he starts attacking any comments about his daugther.

After reading the two articles, my opinion of Allison's situation hasn't changed as far as she is concerned.

However, I certainly no longer feel bad for her father. I realize his job is to do his best for his clients but you can't have it both ways. (Or at least shouldn't be able to have it both ways!)

And what's the deal with the uniforms women wear for track these days? Yes, her uniforms being tight probably do help her performance in the pole vault. But do bikinis really help in this event or in sprinting or even distance events? If so, why don't the guys wear speedos and no shirt? (Coaches, please don't take that as a suggestion! And don't point out that men wear this stuff in triathlons. I have no idea what's up with that!) Sure, these women's uniforms look good to guys but if it's causing more trouble than the increase in performance warrants, why not just wear uniforms that aren't as revealing?

interesting theory wrote:

The irony here IS rather (perversely) entertaining.

Despite my lawyerly defense of what Stokke said, I agree that there is real irony here.

are you muslim?

Avocados Number wrote:

At the risk of incurring your well-known wrath, I suggest that you read the context of the statement more carefully:

"Stokke, to be fair, wasn't quoting his own feelings (necessarily), but was summing up what he says are studies of the impact on victims of female-on-male molestations. However crude the statement, that is the prevailing sentiment, Stokke was saying."

I knew exactly what the context was the first time I read it. He was offering what he believed was the prevailing sentiment of society ... WHAT F***ING SOCIETY DOES THIS MAN LIVE IN?

I don't know anyone who agrees with Stokke's depiction of "prevailing sentiment," do you?

Yes. In fact, every time a sexy young female schoolteacher is brought up on charges of sexual molestation of a minor, this issue is discussed at length in the media (and sometimes, as in this case, in court as well).

And I think YOU should read more carefully, Avocado!From the limited info in the article, either the writer related the situation incorrectly or Al Stokke was hoping to confuse the jury. How can "Where was she when I was 13?" be the conclusion of studies on the impact on VICTIMS? The author goes on to report that Stokke says "that is the prevailing sentiment." Prevailing sentiment of the studies??? This is more likely the general opinion of men who were not sexually molested as children. I sort of feel that way, too, when I hear these stories. However, I realize that I don't know the effect that the situation has and will have on the victims.

Avocados Number wrote:

At the risk of incurring your well-known wrath, I suggest that you read the context of the statement more carefully:

"Stokke, to be fair, wasn't quoting his own feelings (necessarily), but was summing up what he says are studies of the impact on victims of female-on-male molestations. However crude the statement, that is the prevailing sentiment, Stokke was saying."

I don't understand why you guys actually CARE...

Avocados Number wrote:

Yes. In fact, every time a sexy young female schoolteacher is brought up on charges of sexual molestation of a minor, this issue is discussed at length in the media (and sometimes, as in this case, in court as well).

The media is an entertainment industry, they're in it to make money, and move from one titillating story to the next as long as they're making a ton of money. The media isn't representative of society.

One more time, I don't know anyone who agrees with Stokke's depiction of "prevailing sentiment," do you?

I have a question, do any of these news outlets that have jumped all over the Stokke story know what this man does for a living, and the kinds of things he says about the victims of the crimes committed by his clients?

Being a sex crimes attorney who blames the victims is about as low as one can go in the legal profession isn't it? In contrast, a mob attorney is absolutely respectable.

Al Stokke is a Scumbag! wrote:

From the limited info in the article, either the writer related the situation incorrectly or Al Stokke was hoping to confuse the jury.

You, too, need to read more carefully. The woman was already found guilty -- presumably, although not necessarily, by a jury. Stokke made his statement to the judge, not a jury, during the sentencing hearing.

Avocados Number wrote:

You, too, need to read more carefully. The woman was already found guilty -- presumably, although not necessarily, by a jury. Stokke made his statement to the judge, not a jury, during the sentencing hearing.

Why does that matter? I still speaks volumes about what is going on in his head. After all, what 11 year old doesn't want to be assaulted by a serial child molester, right?

Since I guess I helped start this fire again, I feel I should contribute one last thing before I go to bed.

This is so unbelievable that I hope it was taken completely out of context, but I am struggling to see how it is possible. Anyways, from the article linked to in this post:

Defense lawyer Al Stokke, who replaced lead trial attorney Joseph G. Cavallo, questioned any link between the rape and the victim’s claim of mental anguish. Stokke also mocked the girl’s physical injuries, finally conceding she was unconscious but then trying to use that against her. “There’s [no pain] that is felt,” he said, “because she was unconscious.”

brutal irony wrote:Stokke's Great Society

I think you just showed who Stokke speaks of when it comes to "prevailing sentiment." Represent society's most dangerous element long enough and you start to think like them.

Who's going to play Allan Stokke in the movie?