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

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:56 am

[QUOTE=Dottie]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.[/QUOTE]
Can you clarify that please? I'm not sure what you mean.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:59 am

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Can you clarify that please? I'm not sure what you mean.[/QUOTE]

I mean that if something is not relevant to the guilt or lack of guilt of the defendant then it is certainly not necessary to bring it up in the courtroom?

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:01 pm

Dottie wrote: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 be less punished?

I have an entirely different example in mind, not just walking. I'm thinking of people such as the MySpace case, but rather than the example of the girl in the original issue, it's someone who has met several people online and several of those incidences led to rape. And nowhere in my posts did I ever suggest the offender should be less punished, but to completely victimize someone is not going to solve anything, either. If a victim shows a clear pattern of getting into situations where s/he gets raped (for example, a person is in a relationship and their SO habitually rapes them), then to merely victimize them trivializes the issue. That kind of person may need help in one way or another to prevent it from happening again. If you don't identify people like that, they may be likely to be raped again in future; it was mentioned in the MySpace thread how a person who is raped sometimes is habitually raped.

What do you mean with "take advantage of"?

She raped him while he slept, she had her way with him.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:02 pm

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Can you clarify that please? I'm not sure what you mean.[/QUOTE]

I was going to say something about that but the StickyKeys thing came up and turned itself on even though I had said not to turn it on. -.-

I believe that what Dottie is saying is only focusing on one part of the situation.

If someone is assaulted the police ask them if they said anything like "take your best shot".

This is considering that the victim might be in part to blame for what has happened.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:07 pm

Chimaera182 wrote:I have an entirely different example in mind, not just walking. I'm thinking of people such as the MySpace case, but rather than the example of the girl in the original issue, it's someone who has met several people online and several of those incidences led to rape. And nowhere in my posts did I ever suggest the offender should be less punished, but to completely victimize someone is not going to solve anything, either. If a victim shows a clear pattern of getting into situations where s/he gets raped (for example, a person is in a relationship and their SO habitually rapes them), then to merely victimize them trivializes the issue. That kind of person may need help in one way or another to prevent it from happening again. If you don't identify people like that, they may be likely to be raped again in future; it was mentioned in the MySpace thread how a person who is raped sometimes is habitually raped.

But the whole topic was about how to judge rapists, not how to take care of rape victims, and since you advocated a need for the information about a victims sexual history I assume you belive that is relevant for the sentance of the rapist, otherwise you are off topic.

She raped him while he slept, she had her way with him.

Then I belive he has exactly the same amount of blame as last time, which is zero.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:09 pm

[QUOTE=Damuna_Nova]This is considering that the victim might be in part to blame for what has happened.[/QUOTE]

So, should that result in a lesser penalty for the offender? You are both very unclear on that.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:10 pm

[QUOTE=Dottie]But the whole topic was about how to judge rapists, not how to take care of rape victims, and since you advocated a need for the information about a victims sexual history I assume you belive that is relevant for the sentance of the rapist, otherwise you are off topic.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's not off-topic.

If someone has a problem which causes them to be assaulted or raped etc. then the court must order that the person is treated to stop it happening again.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:15 pm

[QUOTE=Dottie]So, should that result in a lesser penalty for the offender? You are both very unclear on that.[/QUOTE]

Well, this varies from case to case.

If someone ran in front of a car on purpose for purposes of suing and was killed as a result, I do not believe that the person who drove the car should be charged too harshly for this. The driver may have been driving too fast, and this would be their fault, but they did not purposefully kill the person.

I understand that I am now going to be attacked for being callous about the value of human life.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:32 pm

So, should that result in a lesser penalty for the offender? You are both very unclear on that.

No. All I was trying to get across was that the victim should not be so wholly victimized. By admitting they share culpability is the first step towards getting them help. The reason I was unclear on that particular issue was because the concept of lesser punishment due the rapist didn't even occur to me. But, Dottie is right, that kind of debate is off-topic, since the question at hand is the rapist's guilt. While a victim's sexual history would be part of a way to help the victim in case they are a habitual raped victim, it really shouldn't influence the court in a rape case. So it should be inadmissable.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:03 pm

In my opinion, for what it's worth, I think any evidence, regardless of the type of evidence, should be admissable into court provided it was legally obtained and has a relevant bearing on the case. In many cases, I fail to see how someone sexual past can be relevant to a rape case, but I can also see how past behaviour may in some isolated cases be important.

Everyone want's to state how the victim is on trial, not the offender, but that doesn't mean the person being prosecuted doesn't have the right to bring forth any evidence that may exist to try and prove his own innocence. If a piece of evidence is deemed inadmissable strictly because it's considered to be personal or touchy to the victim, then how has the offender had every chance to prove his or her innocence?

And regardless of what anyone says, there are people who falsely accuse other people of crimes for a variety of reasons. Some do it for revenge, spite, or something or that nature, while others do it for pure attentions sake. It's why we conduct trials. If no one anywhere ever accused someone of criminal misconduct falsely, then there would be no need for the hassle and cost of a court system beyond sentancing.

While in most rape cases, I agree that the victims past sexual behaviour has no bearing on the issue at hand, in some cases I can't help but wonder, if someone has claimed to be raped multiple times in a very short period of time, if perhaps the person is telling the truth. I say this because I've always believed a rape to be a traumatic crime, and I can't really understand how a woman who had actually been raped would continually find herself in similar positions in a short length of time.

I suppose I am wary of those cases because I know of cases where a man has been convicted of rape, served several years in prison, and the "victim" came forward later and said that she had lied to get back at him for some reason or other.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:34 pm

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/S ... 97/29.html

http://www.justice.govt.nz/bill-of-righ ... -bill.html

http://wwwcj.mnstate.edu/classes/CJ400/ ... claw1.html

http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/downloads/wor ... s07_nw.pdf

http://www.bris.ac.uk/sps/downloads/wor ... s07_nw.pdf

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=225512005

http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/4.html

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1000084.aspx

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:36 pm

I think that if a victim or presumed victim has a history of making false claims about being raped, that would be about the only case were it would be relevant. And even then only if clear parallels can be drawn to the current case.

But then again, that would not be really part of her sexual history, but rather her legal history or criminal history or however you would call it.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:15 pm

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1000084.aspx

Well, that article was rather sexist.

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:21 pm

[QUOTE=Damuna_Nova]And indeed, if such a person got raped without them getting raped purposefully, it's their fault for crying wolf.[/QUOTE]
What in the hell are you talking about?

:speech:

In answer to the posed question... An absolute "nay".

Greg. · Post by **Greg.** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:10 pm

[QUOTE=Lestat]I think that if a victim or presumed victim has a history of making false claims about being raped, that would be about the only case were it would be relevant. And even then only if clear parallels can be drawn to the current case.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. False accusations are often crippling to the accused in terms of reputation and things like your career...

@Fiona - if you leave the door open, and get burgled, then it is kind of your fault. I'm not saying that is relevant to your case, but it would certainly invalidate any home insurance policy you would have...

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:15 pm

Greg, I do not think there is a crime of burglary where the door is open, though you could certainly be robbed.

But really that has nothing whatever to do with the criminal prosecution of the person who takes your stuff (see Dottie;s reasonable posts and my bad tempered ones, above)

As to crippling a reputation, is that not equally true of a person accused of murder (see Colin Stagg) or assault or burglarly? What is the big deal that makes this crime so different if it is not for the historical (and, very dispiritingly, still current) assumption that women are at best intrinsically unreliable and at worst outright malicious in general. It is only recently that they stopped the practice of the judge reminding the jury, as a matter of duty in every such case, that women often tell lies about this. And there is little or no evidence to support that statement in comparison with other crimes, as I understand it

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:17 pm

[QUOTE=Fiona]Greg, I do not think there is a crime of burglary where the door is open, though you could certainly be robbed.

But really that has nothing whatever to do with the criminal prosecution of the person who takes your stuff (see Dottie;s reasonable posts and my bad tempered ones, above)[/QUOTE]
There would be no breaking and entering charge, but somebody suspected could still be charged with larceny or something.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:37 pm

Term of art, Tony. So far as I know burglary is defined partly by the element of breaking and entering. We also have straightforward theft, and theft by entering lockfast places. Wasn't being too serious there. Sorry if that didn't come across

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:39 pm

[QUOTE=Fiona]As to crippling a reputation, is that not equally true of a person accused of murder (see Colin Stagg) or assault or burglarly? What is the big deal that makes this crime so different if it is not for the historical (and, very dispiritingly, still current) assumption that women are at best intrinsically unreliable and at worst outright malicious in general. It is only recently that they stopped the practice of the judge reminding the jury, as a matter of duty in every such case, that women often tell lies about this. And there is little or no evidence to support that statement in comparison with other crimes, as I understand it[/QUOTE]
Are women then incapable of lying? And why just women? Are men not as capable of lying? Anyone can lie.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:40 pm

I think that is my point