Sexual History: Should it be admissible in a court of law?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:41 am

The MySpace thread led me to consider a thorny issue I have often grappled with. As the title asks, in the case of rape, should the victim's sexual history be considered admissible in court?

In a nutshell, those who argue against it state that the victim should not be on trial, while those who believe it to be legitimate feel that not making sexual history admissible denies the accused a full defense.

I can see both sides here, and I think it tends to be contextual. But, on something like this you need a universal ruling, you can't cherry pick from case to case. So, I have a difficult time deciding where I stand.

Thoughts?

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:55 am

Do you mean if the victim has been raped in the past, several times? Like they repeatedly get into situations where they "allow" themselves to be raped? Or that they often engage in risky sexual behavior or that they are known to be very sexually active? I've seen examples of cases where a victim might have been sexually active but chose to deny sex in one case, but because the accused knew of that person's sexual past, they went ahead with it anyway, despite the victim's objections.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:02 am

I think the answer is an outright no, since there is nothing with an active sex life that can alter the meaning of the events that the court should base it's decision on. At least I can't think of anything.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:05 am

I entirely agee with Dottie, and indeed I cannot see why this is a difficult issue at all.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:25 am

If a certain victim does get into situations on a repeated basis where they are raped, to dismiss this kind of history in court absolves them of any guilt. To deny their culpability in such a matter places the entire blame on the accused and none at all on the victim, merely because they are victimized. But if they keep getting into these situations despite having been raped in the past, don't they deserve some of the blame? They should have at the very least learned to be more careful in future.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:30 am

[QUOTE=Chimaera182] But if they keep getting into these situations despite having been raped in the past, don't they deserve some of the blame? [/QUOTE]

No.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:34 am

I'm agreeing with Chim.

What if the "victim" is doing this to sue companies, and has a history of doing this?

And indeed, if such a person got raped without them getting raped purposefully, it's their fault for crying wolf.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:36 am

What if my house has been burgled three times ( as it has) How is that relevant to the criminal trial of the third burglar?

And indeed, if such a person got raped without them getting raped purposefully, it's their fault for crying wolf.

Do you know what the word means, by any chance?

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:41 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]Do you know what the word means, by any chance?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I do.

People get hit by cars purposefully to sue drivers, this isn't so different.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:42 am

Sorry, I cannot continue to discuss this in that case, since we clearly don't share a planet

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:45 am

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]But if they keep getting into these situations despite having been raped in the past, don't they deserve some of the blame? They should have at the very least learned to be more careful in future.[/QUOTE]

So you are saying that If I choose to rape, murder or rob people I should only be punished inversely proportionate to the risk taking of my victims?

This sounds compeletely perverse in my opinion.

I have to ask, what are, in your opinion, the reasons for having laws?

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:45 am

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]But if they keep getting into these situations despite having been raped in the past, don't they deserve some of the blame? They should have at the very least learned to be more careful in future.[/QUOTE]

Well depends on the "rape." Some are real rape, others are just labeled as rape. Like someone I know is not in the mood but her partner wants to and she doesn't say no. "I will let him have his way with me." That's what she said to me.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:45 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]Sorry, I cannot continue to discuss this in that case, since we clearly don't share a planet[/QUOTE]

I consider that to be an attack against myself.

Do you know what the word mudslinging means?

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:49 am

To be honest, Dn, I don't care if you think it is a personal attack. Where I live people do not fling themselves under cars for the purpose of suing drivers and I don't believe they do it where you are either. As to mudslinging, well soooorrry but the insouciant assumption that witnesses in rape trials have to be treated differently because of the possibility of lies is nothing less than mysogyny. I don't find it all that tactful either

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:49 am

[QUOTE=Dottie]So you are saying that If I choose to rape, murder or rob people I should only be punished inversely proportionate to the risk taking of my victims?

This sounds compeletely perverse in my opinion.

I have to ask, what are, in your opinion, the reasons for having laws?[/QUOTE]

I think you're warping what Chim meant.

I believe he is suggesting that both parties are to blame in such a situation, and not just the rapist.

I do not believe he is absolving the rapist of their guilt.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:51 am

Being burgaled and being raped are two different cases, however. A home may appear enticing and, if cased, may show as having some choice things to take. As the home owner, it isn't your responsibility to choose what you put in your home, because it's your right to buy what you want; you earned the money (hopefully) and you earned the right to buy things you like.

If someone has a known history of being raped, that's different. The victim had a repsonsibility to themselves to protect themselves so that such would never happen again. But they also had the right to choose whether to put themselves in that situation again. If the victim choose to put themselves in a similar situation again, past experience should have at least prepared them for the possibility of being raped again. Therefore, they ought to have done something to protect themselves, or divorce themselves from the situation entirely.

Let's say for example a guy (who has a girlfriend and is very loyal to her [yes, it happens]) gets drunk at a party and passes out. He wakes up to find out some girl had taken advantage of him while he was unconscious. If he were to go to another party and drink himself into a stupor again, and another girl chose to take advantage of him in that state, is he not responsible for at least trying to keep such a thing from occurring twice?

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:51 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]To be honest, Dn, I don't care if you think it is a personal attack. Where I live people do not fling themselves under cars for the purpose of suing drivers and I don't believe they do it where you are either.[/QUOTE]

Just because it doesn't happen where you live doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

That's like saying that because a neighbourhood hasn't been robbed in the last five years that another one hasn't.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:52 am

[QUOTE=Damuna_Nova]I think you're warping what Chim meant.

I believe he is suggesting that both parties are to blame in such a situation, and not just the rapist.

I do not believe he is absolving the rapist of their guilt.[/QUOTE]

If something is not relevant to the guilt of the rapist then it has no place in court, so you must be wrong about what Chim meant.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:53 am

So you have evidence for this phenomenon where you live?

In any case if it does happen it would be the subject of a civil case, and nothing to do with a criminal trial

@ Chim. Funny, I thought I had the right to walk about the streets or stay in my own home with a guest too. Clearly that is different

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:56 am

Chimaera182 wrote:If someone has a known history of being raped, that's different. The victim had a repsonsibility to themselves to protect themselves so that such would never happen again. But they also had the right to choose whether to put themselves in that situation again. If the victim choose to put themselves in a similar situation again, past experience should have at least prepared them for the possibility of being raped again. Therefore, they ought to have done something to protect themselves, or divorce themselves from the situation entirely.

So you are saying that owning things is a fundamental right, but taking a walk outside in a desolate area is not? Therefor people who take walks have themselfs to blame? And that in turn means that the offender, should they be raped, should be punished less?

Let's say for example a guy (who has a girlfriend and is very loyal to her [yes, it happens]) gets drunk at a party and passes out. He wakes up to find out some girl had taken advantage of him while he was unconscious. If he were to go to another party and drink himself into a stupor again, and another girl chose to take advantage of him in that state, is he not responsible for at least trying to keep such a thing from occurring twice?

What do you mean with "take advantage of"?