Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Rape Trials

Rape Rape Trials

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

Poll: Rape Trials (37 member(s) have cast votes)

Rape Trials

  1. Yes (9 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. No (27 votes [75.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 12:27 PM

Yama, on Oct 16 2003, 01:10 PM, said:

QueenTiye, clarification please.  Did you mean the burden of proof should be on the defense, too?
Yep.  I mean that anyone who wants to introduce sexual history should have to demonstrate its relevance in a discovery process that includes the lawyers, the defendant, the alleged victim and the judge.

Sorry for not being clearer.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#42 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 12:48 PM

Since the Kobe Bryant trial started this thread, and since everything I know about law I learned on the sport pages any way, I thought I'd add the following links:

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=1639101
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=1638553

And I will add that I rather would defend Kobe than Steve Bartman.  Go Yankees!!!
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#43 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 12:49 PM

Quote

A history of enjoyment of violence during sex acts would render blood evidence less damaging.

Actually, someone with a history of enjoying violence during sex (kink) isn't likely to make a claim of rape nor is a prosecutor likely to file a charge that, in the end, wouldn't be sustained.  Kinksters are completely aware of the position they are in, as far as a public perception.  Not only are they not believed (because piror sexual history IS allowed), they are shunned because they are so far outside acceptable community standards that no jury is likely to be able to be seated.

Although I thank you for giving me an example.  :)

Here's my problem with introducing prior sexual behavior; it says that if a woman has ever made a bad choice (outside the mores of the community) that she is outside the protection of the law.  I find this to be repressive to women in general.

Now, do I have a solution regarding how to protect the rights of the accused AND the alledged victim?  No, I don't.  And that said, I think that it should be taken on a case by case basis.

What I am trying to say.. (and why I am in this discussion) is that we need to try and take stock of how we judge the morality of an alledged victim when it comes to hearing testimony.  It is up to the public (jurors) to take the bar higher when listening to such things and set aide the inflamatory to judge the facts.  I see no other soluiton that gives both the accused and the alledged victim equal protection.

Because, this is the one kind of case, (Rape)where morality is used to judge whether or not a victim is credible.  I find that to be troublesome.

Example: (Yes it is extreme, but examples often need to be)

A woman consents to have sex with multiple partners at a party.  She fully enjoys herself and when she is finished, she dresses and tries to go home.  

Late commers to the party hear about the gang-bang and decide to 'take' what others were freely given.

She is dragged into a room screaming no, and raped.

Let's say there is a video tape of the entire night's events, it is clear that she gave consent at one time, ended the encounters and was then forceably raped.

My question, could you set aside your enflamed morality at her previous behavior and look at the facts of the case?

Did her prior sexual behavior entitle men who were not given permission to just 'take' her?

This is an extreme case, but I think it illustrates something that we're not touching on.

The defense in this case would probably be the prior acts, that she did ask for it.  How could the late comers not think they were entitiled--every other man had 'had' her.  And it would WORK.

Why?

Because in the hearts and minds of the public, women have a greater responsibility for the sexual circumstances they find themselves in that men do.  Even in this example *I* find it hard not to place the majority of the 'blame' at the feet of such a woman.  I mean, what was she thinking?

BUT the truth is, she has a right to engage in legal sexual bahavior without having to be in fear of men who do NOT take responsibility for their actions.

In the above example, her sexual escapades would make her unable to EVER make a claim of rape and have it be believed.  Even years later, if her sexual history is admissible, she is placed outside the protection of the law because of a youthful indescretion.

While men are considered to be 'sowing their wild oats' in their youth, women have to live with their  sexual choices and the history they create for the rest of their lives.  AND become bait to would-be rapists because it is KNOWN that a woman with a questionable past will NOT be believed.  Even moral and non-abusive men treat such women with less protection.

While this is a harsh reality, it is in fact a reality, when it comes to making a claim of rape.  What we are really saying when we allow her history, is that sexaul choices that the public finds questionable  make her 'fair game' and of questionable character.

It is the inflamatroy nature of prior sexual acts that has me worried, it so prejudices the jury.  AND this is exacty why it is used by each and every defense attorney.  Like I said originally -- It works!  It works because our sensibilities are inflamed by such prior behavior.

~sigh~  I'm concerned and suppport the rights of the accused
to have a fair trial, and any defendant should be allowed to present an agressive defense.. (YES the BUT is coming) BUT, how do we balance that against the concept of creating a climate that makes it almost impossible for a woman to be protected under the law?

This is my concern.

~ Cait  :angel:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#44 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 01:06 PM

Caitriona, on Oct 16 2003, 05:49 PM, said:

~sigh~  I'm concerned and suppport the rights of the accused to have a fair trial, and any defendant should be allowed to present an agressive defense.. (YES the BUT is coming) BUT, how do we balance that against the concept of creating a climate that makes it almost impossible for a woman to be protected under the law?

This is my concern.

~ Cait  :angel:
I honestly think this is the concern of everyone who posted.  That's the crux of the matter.

Can we agree to agree on this one?
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#45 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 01:29 PM

Yama, on Oct 16 2003, 06:06 PM, said:

Caitriona, on Oct 16 2003, 05:49 PM, said:

~sigh~  I'm concerned and suppport the rights of the accused to have a fair trial, and any defendant should be allowed to present an agressive defense.. (YES the BUT is coming) BUT, how do we balance that against the concept of creating a climate that makes it almost impossible for a woman to be protected under the law?

This is my concern.

~ Cait  :angel:
I honestly think this is the concern of everyone who posted.  That's the crux of the matter.

Can we agree to agree on this one?
:D We MOST certainly can!

~ Cait  :angel:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#46 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 01:39 PM

Gee, can I just say "what Cait said" multiple times?  ;)

Great posts, Cait.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#47 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 02:35 PM

Caitriona, on Oct 16 2003, 01:49 PM, said:

Example: (Yes it is extreme, but examples often need to be)

A woman consents to have sex with multiple partners at a party.  She fully enjoys herself and when she is finished, she dresses and tries to go home. 

Late commers to the party hear about the gang-bang and decide to 'take' what others were freely given.

She is dragged into a room screaming no, and raped.

Let's say there is a video tape of the entire night's events, it is clear that she gave consent at one time, ended the encounters and was then forceably raped.

My question, could you set aside your enflamed morality at her previous behavior and look at the facts of the case?

Did her prior sexual behavior entitle men who were not given permission to just 'take' her?

This is an extreme case, but I think it illustrates something that we're not touching on.

The defense in this case would probably be the prior acts, that she did ask for it.  How could the late comers not think they were entitiled--every other man had 'had' her.  And it would WORK.

Why?

Because in the hearts and minds of the public, women have a greater responsibility for the sexual circumstances they find themselves in that men do.  Even in this example *I* find it hard not to place the majority of the 'blame' at the feet of such a woman.  I mean, what was she thinking?

BUT the truth is, she has a right to engage in legal sexual bahavior without having to be in fear of men who do NOT take responsibility for their actions.

In the above example, her sexual escapades would make her unable to EVER make a claim of rape and have it be believed.  Even years later, if her sexual history is admissible, she is placed outside the protection of the law because of a youthful indescretion.

While men are considered to be 'sowing their wild oats' in their youth, women have to live with their  sexual choices and the history they create for the rest of their lives.  AND become bait to would-be rapists because it is KNOWN that a woman with a questionable past will NOT be believed.  Even moral and non-abusive men treat such women with less protection.
Your correct Cait, there is a double standard. If a man has multiple sexual experiences, he's considered, as you put it "Sowing his wild oats" While a woman is considered (can't use the term on this board)

Going with you're example: Yes, I would be able to set aside my opinions of her earlier encounters. In your example she was raped...

However, allow me to alter your example slightly to make my point.

The woman, who had just had numerous sexual encounters now goes down stairs and rejoins the party. A few party goers who brought their own entertainment (Drugs) to the party offer the young woman some. (For sake of argument, say the drug is weed) She freely takes it and enjoys herself.

A little while later, she sees a man she finds attractive. Goes upstairs and has sex with him. Much later, after the effects of the pot have worn off, she realizes what has happened and claims rape.

Don't you think her past experiences should be admitted into court?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#48 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 03:19 PM

Quote

Don't you think her past experiences should be admitted into court?

Interesting.  

Actually No, I don't.  

Her earlier sexual activity has nothing to do with the incident as you present it.  Other than to illustrate that she indeed had sex.  And let's face it that is not really an earth shattering revelation.  We all (well unless we choose not to that is) have sex.  

Having sex previosuly is not the relevent element here.  What is relevant is the issue of her consent and his reliance on her consent.

In this case, I do believe that her drug use should be admitted into court.

Diminished capacity is relevent in this instance because it explains how she could 'feel' raped and how he could 'still' be innocent--and this is the goal of justice (IMHO).  If I were the DA on something like this, it would be hard to make a case and I would be hard pressed to find a reason why I should. (Other than politics)

In this instance, the drug might have actually rendered the woman incapable of giving informed consent and she could believe she was violated.  But because she willingly took the drugs that caused her ability to give consent to become diminished, I feel she has to bare the burden of responsibility here.  

The man in the example you've given, has no responsibility to know that she has had sex previouly or that she has taken drugs, her initial consent is all he knows--and all that is relevant.  Unless of course he gave her the drugs.. Then it's a little different.  But, he's acting in good faith as far as I can see.

Is this unfortunate, yes!  But it happens.

Is it a crime, maybe, technically.. I'm not sure.

Should it be punishable by law?  I don't think so.

Under the situation you present, I'd have to say it was a case of 'self-induced' diminished capacity on one side, and, good faith acceptance of her consent on the other.  

But her previous sexual encounters don't have any relevance and don't answer the question that needs to be answered in order to determine the truth.  Her drug intake does.  Was her ability to give consent diminished?  And did he in good faith rely on her consent?  These are the issues here, not her previous sexual activity.

And this is my point, If we can take the 'judgment' of a woman's sexual behavior and judge the situation on the facts, then we stand a better chance of determining the truth.  Her earlier sexual encounters only cloud the real issue of her 'self-induced diminished capacity', a state the man had no knowledge of.

Was that clear?  I'm hoping it was.  I'm trying to illustrate how much sex and our personal morals interfer with judging the facts of a case.  Admitting her past sexual history would only cloud the issue.

Just my opinion.......

~ Cait  :angel:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#49 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 04:59 PM

First off, I'm well aware that most practicioners of "kinky" sex have safety mechanisms in place.  However, the fact that specific safety mechanisms exist underscores that things can and have gone awry.  Indeed, a misunderstanding of such practices would be a #1 reason to evaluate the past practices of individuals.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to determine if certain safety mechanisms existed in the past or had been followed and enumerated previously.  Just like not every building follows the fire code, not every practicioner of certain types of sex follows their rules as well.  

Now, while you could be raped on a case by case basis, you can also be someone that sends extremely inconsistent messages about what you want and don't want at any one time.  Note that this is not the same as saying it's okay for someone who is "loose" to be raped, it just means that communication is a two-way street and it can frequently fail.  

Needless to say, rape is frequently accompanied by force, and so, past situations are generally moot.  However, my point was not that it's germaine to every rape case or even most rape cases, only that reviewing past behaviors is not only useful for determining the truthfulness of an accuser, it can also establish patterns of behavior that can lead to misunderstandings.  

Let's not forget, an accused rapist is still protected by presumption of innocence.  Frequently an accusation of rape can be just as damaging towards someone as having an accuser's past history trotted out for public view.  Being found innocent in court doesn't always equate to being found innocent by the public, and this can ruin careers.  As long as the defense is honestly trying to make real substantive points, and not going on fishing expeditions, they have the right and the duty to make use of prior information about the accuser to prove the innocence of their client.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#50 StoryTeller

StoryTeller
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 4 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 05:09 PM

i do think past experiences are relevant to a rape case.

Quote

A woman consents to have sex with multiple partners at a party. She fully enjoys herself and when she is finished, she dresses and tries to go home.

Late commers to the party hear about the gang-bang and decide to 'take' what others were freely given.

She is dragged into a room screaming no, and raped.

this is a good example. what will this case show a good judge / jury? (depending on the country...)
it should show them that the woman, when consenting to have sex, doesn't say no. (and doesn't cry "rape" afterwards). so this helps prove the womans point.

and i know that people will say that the jury will only look at the fact that she was a "slut" (in their mind, not mine...) so she deserved it. but that's a bad jury. they exist in every case. they might descriminate against a black person, or an arrogant person, or a person who just isn't nice. so soon one might hear a claim of "it's not right to put this victim on the stand because he is an arrogant person and the jury might say he deserves it without really considering the evidence".
that's a problem with having people judge other people, but puting the victime on the stand is still relevant.

but i want to talk about something else:
there are two types of rapers:
there are those who know they rape, and there are those who don't.

how can a man rape a woman without knowing it? what if that woman always sais "no" before / during sex? even when she consents?  (say, she wants to appear reluctant. or she likes the fight.)
she might really mean it once, but how should her partner know?
(and before you say no woman acts like that, i dated one who did. when i actually stopped when she tried to push me away she got upset and said that "i didn't want her enough, i didn't lose control" and that it offended her. we broke up afterwards...)

so in this case, isn't past experiances relevant?

and what if the woman likes to be gaged and bound during sex? this doesn't in any way mean that anyone has a right to rape her! (just to make myself clear...)
but it might raise a reasonable doubt if the only evidance is that the accused bound and gaged her. so here it might be relavent as well.

if a woman likes having sex (or doesn't, but still has a lot of it) than as i see it she should proudly take to the stand and say "i have a lot of sex. you can ask my former partners - when i consent, i don't say no and i don't press charges. i have a lot of people to testify to that. here i said no and he still raped me." and this should count to her favor.

and if the jury dosn't like it, well they might not like black people, that doesn't mean that black victimes shouldn't take the stand so the jury won't know their coulor.

oh, and this is my first content post, so be nice... :)

Edited by StoryTeller, 16 October 2003 - 05:11 PM.


#51 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 05:40 PM

Quote

However, my point was not that it's germaine to every rape case or even most rape cases, only that reviewing past behaviors is not only useful for determining the truthfulness of an accuser, it can also establish patterns of behavior that can lead to misunderstandings.

Setting aside, that the accused is guaranteed a defense and has the presumption of innocence and setting aside that misunderstandings can and DO occur in sexual encounters, how does examination of an accusors past sexual behavior impact on truthfulness?  How is it useful?  Other than to inflame a jury!  Other than to use perceived mores to judge anothers behavior and to use that to imply other immoral characteristics; ie lying.  

And let's at least be honest, this is the entire purpose of such examinations of a woman's past sexual behavior by the defense, to make the causal connection in the minds of a jury, using one set of perceived immoral activities to imply another.  Sexual permissiveness = untruthfullness.  One immoral decision implies another.  

IMHO, past sexual behavior and truthfullness just don't necessarily follow like day to night.  To make that connection just isn't necessarily true.  But once that bell is rung, you can't undo it, the impression in the juries mind, and in the mind of the public, is set..  

AND again I say that the probative value is outweighted by the prejudicial effect. (In many cases)  But because it is not prejudicial against the defendant it is allowed under the rules of evidence in most states.

Does the accusors character and truthfulness play a factor in determining who is telling the truth.. Of course it does.  BUT how is her sexual activity going to reveal her truthfulness?  

I'm being serious here, how does it (overall) reveal whether or not a woman is telling the truth?  What I see, is that it muddies the water with moral judgments, making the 'sexually permissive' or 'kinky' woman, one and the same with a liar.  This is not true and to continue to claim that it is true is the point i am making in this disucssion.

That said, I do not have the answers regarding how to ensure a fair trial for the accused (ie: an agressive defense) and also eliminate the notion that sexual permissiveness is the same being untruthful.  I wish I did.

And my primary concern remains the same, if a womans' sexual history is used as a defense and to discredit her testimony, then a portion of the population is outside the protection of the law.  (women who have questionable sexual histories in the minds of a community)

I believe we all understand each side of this problem and everyone has stated their postion eloquently and on point.  I can't say I disagree with anyone's comments.

What I am looking for here, is a discussion about why sexual history is even considered by the public (juries) as a barometer for truthfulness.

~sigh~  I fear I've failed to illustrate this successfully.

~ Cait  :angel:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#52 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 07:14 PM

Quote

What I am looking for here, is a discussion about why sexual history is even considered by the public (juries) as a barometer for truthfulness.

Honestly, a little of it probably stems from the fact that a sexually active woman could be seen to be acting in many ways like a man might be expected to, and men don't generally get thought of as the victims in a sexual situation.  Much sympathy for a woman in a rape case is to be had in general because men frequently take the aggressive role in sex, so therefore the perception is that men dictate the extent to which the proceedings go.  Thus, the man's word about certain things is often taken with a grain of salt, in terms of his ability to use force to get what he wants.  Men's protestations of innocence due to being "pressured" by a woman would tend to be laughed off.

However, once the female is made to seem a sexual aggressor herself consistently, people cease to consider the accuser quite as helpless as they might have before.  Once that it's obvious that she has some fairly extensive experience with sex herself, it becomes harder for some to understand why she might have gotten herself into trouble unless she invited it in some manner.  Further, it might also lead one to believe that perhaps that the woman is quite the opposite of an aggressor, but is rather a submissive personality whose issues with self-esteem got her into a situation that she regretted later on and considered to be rape, after the fact, perhaps with the "help" of other people.  (People tend to be cynical about certain revelations being brought on by the suggestions of others, even trained psychatrists)

Now, I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily true, or even true of what people think, but it does seem to work when I see what defenses tend to use this testamony to prove.  It's not that the woman acted immorally, it's that she's functioning sexually in the dominant, male role, and people have trouble envisioning a dominant personality being raped.  Just think about society's general reaction to the idea that men can be raped, in general (outside of prison, of course).

Edited by Uncle Sid, 16 October 2003 - 07:15 PM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#53 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 16 October 2003 - 07:21 PM

Caitriona, on Oct 16 2003, 04:19 PM, said:

Was that clear?  I'm hoping it was.  I'm trying to illustrate how much sex and our personal morals interfer with judging the facts of a case.  Admitting her past sexual history would only cloud the issue.

Just my opinion.......

~ Cait  :angel:
It was very clear. And, I find myself sort of agreeing with you, regarding your reasoning in my example.

As for your comment

Quote

What I am looking for here, is a discussion about why sexual history is even considered by the public (juries) as a barometer for truthfulness.

This is an excellent point. A alledged victim's sexual past shouldn't be used as a guide of her truthfulness, but it more often then not is.

In regard to the Bryant case though...the alledged victim arrived at the hospital with undergarments that had semen other then Bryant's on them...So, in the Bryant case, her past sexual history IMO NEEDS to be admitted.

Especially if she had sex with 3 different men all 3 days prior to the her encounter with Kobe...Because then, as the defense is claiming, that could account for the bruising around her gential area.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#54 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 17 October 2003 - 02:39 AM

I'm going to poke my head only to say I voted No, and that if I said anything else, I'd be quoting Cait. ;)

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#55 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 17 October 2003 - 03:03 AM

Uncle Sid, on Oct 16 2003, 04:14 PM, said:

Quote

What I am looking for here, is a discussion about why sexual history is even considered by the public (juries) as a barometer for truthfulness.

Honestly, a little of it probably stems from the fact that a sexually active woman could be seen to be acting in many ways like a man might be expected to, and men don't generally get thought of as the victims in a sexual situation.  Much sympathy for a woman in a rape case is to be had in general because men frequently take the aggressive role in sex, so therefore the perception is that men dictate the extent to which the proceedings go.  Thus, the man's word about certain things is often taken with a grain of salt, in terms of his ability to use force to get what he wants.  Men's protestations of innocence due to being "pressured" by a woman would tend to be laughed off.

However, once the female is made to seem a sexual aggressor herself consistently, people cease to consider the accuser quite as helpless as they might have before.  Once that it's obvious that she has some fairly extensive experience with sex herself, it becomes harder for some to understand why she might have gotten herself into trouble unless she invited it in some manner.  Further, it might also lead one to believe that perhaps that the woman is quite the opposite of an aggressor, but is rather a submissive personality whose issues with self-esteem got her into a situation that she regretted later on and considered to be rape, after the fact, perhaps with the "help" of other people.  (People tend to be cynical about certain revelations being brought on by the suggestions of others, even trained psychatrists)

Now, I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily true, or even true of what people think, but it does seem to work when I see what defenses tend to use this testamony to prove.  It's not that the woman acted immorally, it's that she's functioning sexually in the dominant, male role, and people have trouble envisioning a dominant personality being raped.  Just think about society's general reaction to the idea that men can be raped, in general (outside of prison, of course).
Interesting, and you have some interesting points in there, but I'm going to have to mull it over ;) In all cases though, the victim will have an easier time selling his or her case as showing themselves as somehow weak. Weak victims as easy to feel sorry for/believe. Heck, I bet in most cases with a victim, the defense spends some time trying to make the jury believe, how could this person be so gullible, stupid, weak, etc. Sad victim becomes gullible becomes unthinking, unthinking becomes irresponsible, and so on. Making the victim less and less a victim and more a stupid or morally challenged (irresponsible) person. Morally challenged? Now if they are morally challenged, how do we know they are trustworthy witnesses? It starts to brew a few suspicions. Were they *really* not in control of the situation?

How multiple sexual experiences makes her "stronger" or more masculine (which sometimes automatically equates to strongness  :rolleyes: ), I'm not quite sure, other than sterotypes *sigh* To me, more sexual experience could actually makes her weaker, she could be addicted to sex ;) (thats more of a joke, I know promiscuity doesn't equate to addiction :p :D )
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#56 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 October 2003 - 05:26 AM

sierraleone, on Oct 17 2003, 02:03 AM, said:

To me, more sexual experience could actually makes her weaker, she could be addicted to sex
...or have one of several other psychological conditions, whether diagnosed as medical psychiatric cases or not. And, if that's one symptom of whatever her mental problem is, another would often be an inclination to hurt someone else with false accusations of a sex-related crime, especially if it's someone who's already connected with her in a way that has something to do with sex (hit on her too much, rejected her, used to date her, had a one-night thing with her that one regrets and the other doesn't, dated or even raped a friend of hers, et ceterea).

#57 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 17 October 2003 - 10:13 AM

Gaiate, on Oct 17 2003, 07:39 AM, said:

I'm going to poke my head only to say I voted No, and that if I said anything else, I'd be quoting Cait. ;)

--Te
OT:

{{{{{{{{{{{ Te }}}}}}}}}}}}

Oh it's so nice to see you... I sure have missed you!!!

[you may not return to your regularily scheduled programing... ]

:angel:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#58 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 17 October 2003 - 10:17 AM

Also OT:

{{{{{{Cait}}}}}}

The feeling's mutual. ;)

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Rape, Rape Trials

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users