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

[Dottie]

snoopyofour: If it were true that woman who are more likely to go home with strange men also where more likely to file false rape charges I would be more sympathetic (but still disagree), but that is not the case. It is also that claim that multiple people here on the board have asked you to back up.

No one is demanding a logical connection between these two actions, people just find it irrational to assume a connection without any empirical evidence.

[snoopyofour]

@Dottie, sorry I thought the conversation had moved to something else. Also, sorry if some of my posts have seemed to not address the topic, for a while there I was arguing about something tangent to the actual topic of the thread. Alright, first of all, not every case is so simple as finding the empirical evidence or "facts" (a word becoming more ambiguous by the day). For instance, a woman goes to a bar. She meets a man and they hit it off. They are both drinking more than is responsible and towards the end of the evening the man asks the woman if she wants to come home with him. She agrees and they leave to his place. The next day she files a rape complaint. After medical examination it is obvious that she did in fact have sex with him but there are no marks or signs of struggle on her or on him. The man claims that there was consent and the women claims that there was not. At this point the jury has nothing to push them one way or the other. Now say that it was brought to their attention and supported by witnesses that this woman does on a regular basis go to bars, pick up men, and sleep with them. Considering the similiarity between this situation and the many other similiar situations in which she did have sex with the man she went home with, this provides evidence (not empirical but probable) that she had the intention of sleeping with the man she went home with the night she claims she was raped.

[QUOTE/Dottie]No one is demanding a logical connection between these two actions, people just find it irrational to assume a connection without any empirical evidence.[/QUOTE]

hmmmm, it seems to me that everyone is demanding a logical connection. However, they are asking for a specific kind of logic which is rarely used in courtrooms or in the real world in general. They're asking for deductive logic, which is mostly used for contracts and arguments delving into the metaphysical. In doing this they exclude an entire field of logic: inductive logic. Inductive logic deals in probabilities and it is what most trials (not including contract trials) revolve around. Also the idea of trying to reduce something as complex as trial and the relevance of evidence into a syllogism is absurd. In the situation above evidence of her sexual history would be detrimental to her credibility. Its meant to, her credibility is suspect. Her actions are inconsistent with her past behaviors. Inconsistencies are important in trials. Now if the defense can provide possible reasons why the prosecution might file a false rape charge then the deal is sealed. I don't know why I bothered writing this since I'm about to get a riotous mob telling me "that doesn't make any sense" oh well, it can't be helped. Maybe I'll just go ask Maddox for some advice, although he'll probably just tell me to eat some beef jerkey, headbutt a child, and go to Tucker's website. Actually...that sounds like really good advice.


Whoa! I thought that other post didn't go through. Oh well, I just said basically the same thing in more detail. ummm...whoops.

@Fiona, I didn't realize you were still on this thread and this one goes way back but I just remembered it and thought I'd go ahead and give you an answer. I don't know exactly what you mean by sexually active, my girlfriend had lots of sex with her previous boyfriend and I have no problem with that. But if I find out that a girl I'm interested in gets around, I'm likely to start to think of her has hedonistic, shallow, boring, and probably unsafe.

[Fiona]

At this point the jury has nothing to push them one way or the other.

Presumption of innocence covers this completely

Now say that it was brought to their attention and supported by witnesses that this woman does on a regular basis go to bars, pick up men, and sleep with them. Considering the similiarity between this situation and the many other similiar situations in which she did have sex with the man she went home with, this provides evidence (not empirical but probable) that she had the intention of sleeping with the man she went home with the night she claims she was raped.

You keep repeating this and it doesn't get any more true. What has her intention got to do with whether she was raped or not? Or do you think it is impossible to change your mind? That there are no women who go home with many men and sleep with some of them?

hmmmm, it seems to me that everyone is demanding a logical connection. However, they are asking for a specific kind of logic which is rarely used in courtrooms or in the real world in general. They're asking for deductive logic, which is mostly used for contracts and arguments delving into the metaphysical.

I do not think so. They are looking for any kind of sensible connection between prosmicuity and dishonesty. You still haven't shown one

In doing this they exclude an entire field of logic: inductive logic. Inductive logic deals in probabilities and it is what most trials (not including contract trials) revolve around.

Not true. Criminal trials deal with "beyond reasonable doubt". Civil trials may be settled on balance of probability though.

Also the idea of trying to reduce something as complex as trial and the relevance of evidence into a syllogism is absurd.

I see no syllogism here. Explain please

In the situation above evidence of her sexual history would be detrimental to her credibility. Its meant to, her credibility is suspect. Her actions are inconsistent with her past behaviors. Inconsistencies are important in trials.

It would be detrimental for the social and cultural reasons others have outlined above. It would not be detrimental to her credibility if it were not for those prejudices, and in fact, as I have said, could equally well be imagined to support her credibility. It does neither and should be (and is) inadmissable

Now if the defense can provide possible reasons why the prosecution might file a false rape charge then the deal is sealed.

One of the links I posted above deals with this.

I don't know why I bothered writing this since I'm about to get a riotous mob telling me "that doesn't make any sense"

That is because it doesn't.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]

@Fiona, I didn't realize you were still on this thread and this one goes way back but I just remembered it and thought I'd go ahead and give you an answer. I don't know exactly what you mean by sexually active, my girlfriend had lots of sex with her previous boyfriend and I have no problem with that. But if I find out that a girl I'm interested in gets around, I'm likely to start to think of her has hedonistic, shallow, boring, and probably unsafe.[/QUOTE]

I know this is pointed to Fiona but I cant resist...

Due to what you say your position regarding the bold part is at least incongruent. I have problems with the fact my gf had sex with other guys in the past yes, but that's not a big issue will be better fitting.

Regarding the italic part...

Gets around? How can you be sure that she will do that with you if you're with her? Regarding safety, you can always wear condoms. But maybe you dont like condoms, and that's with you... ok, I wont discuss this further.

Maybe I'll just go ask Maddox for some advice, although he'll probably just tell me to eat some beef jerkey, headbutt a child, and go to Tucker's website. Actually...that sounds like really good advice.

This explains a lot.

[snoopyofour]

Fable, you should just ban me now.

@Fiona

"I see no syllogism here. Explain please"

"sexual history of complainant in rape case"
|
(logical connection being: -blank-)
|
"truthfulness of complainant in rape case"


^THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SYLLOGISM.


"I do not think so. They are looking for any kind of sensible connection between prosmicuity and dishonesty. You still haven't shown one"

You're right, I haven't shown one!!!:speech: Oh, oh, oh yeah...wait...I wasn't trying to. I've shown how promiscuity is detrimental because it might provide evidence of an inconsistency in the accuser's actions.

"Not true. Criminal trials deal with "beyond reasonable doubt". Civil trials may be settled on balance of probability though."

....does anyone know where I can find an emoticon that shows my head exploding into confetti and then being crapped on by a village of hamsters?...anyone? "Beyond a reasonable doubt" has everything to do with probability. I'll go ahead and ask my next question in advance since I can guess what you'll say. What experience do you have with the legal system?

"Quote:
Now say that it was brought to their attention and supported by witnesses that this woman does on a regular basis go to bars, pick up men, and sleep with them. Considering the similiarity between this situation and the many other similiar situations in which she did have sex with the man she went home with, this provides evidence (not empirical but probable) that she had the intention of sleeping with the man she went home with the night she claims she was raped.


You keep repeating this and it doesn't get any more true. "

You are absolutely wrong.


"It would be detrimental for the social and cultural reasons others have outlined above. It would not be detrimental to her credibility if it were not for those prejudices, and in fact, as I have said, could equally well be imagined to support her credibility. In fact it does neither and should be (and is) inadmissable"

This statement is one made by people who wish to invalidate a perfectly rational line of argument by making it seem prejudiced. It's effective if the person is so vapid that they can't take the time to see through it. As I showed in my last post, it would be relevant, you're not being able to see this is evidence of your own prejudices. As for it being supportive of her credibility...well, testimonies would determine that.

As for your links. I don't read them. If you can't take the time to produce a coherent argument from your own words rather than stringing together a bunch of articles loosely related to the to your point, then I don't feel the need to take my time and read them.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]

As for your links. I don't read them. If you can't take the time to produce a coherent argument from your own words rather than stringing together a bunch of articles loosely related to the to your point, then I don't feel the need to take my time and read them.[/QUOTE]

You could at least have tried to look polite. How many times have you thought to write this?

[snoopyofour]

@ Luis

"Due to what you say your position regarding the bold part is at least incongruent. I have problems with the fact my gf had sex with other guys in the past yes, but that's not a big issue will be better fitting."

I'm not sure what you mean in that last part. But show me how my statement is "incongruent".

"Gets around? How can you be sure that she will do that with you if you're with her? Regarding safety, you can always wear condoms. But maybe you dont like condoms, and that's with you... ok, I wont discuss this further."

I don't care if she does it with me because she isn't going to be with me. If she gets around then it tells me she's not anyone I'm interested in, no matter how nice she might seem. And no, not everyone can wear condoms. I'm not saying any more than that so don't bother asking.

And unless you were a virgin when you met your girlfriend, which still isn't a very good excuse, then I don't think you have any right to be upset that she slept with someone before you.

"You could at least have tried to look polite. How many times have you thought to write this?"

Are you accusing me of being rude? Can you put that in a file and label it "Things I Already Know"

[Fiona]

@Fiona

"I see no syllogism here. Explain please"

"sexual history of complainant in rape case"
|
(logical connection being: -blank-)
|
"truthfulness of complainant in rape case"


^THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SYLLOGISM.

Don't think so

"I do not think so. They are looking for any kind of sensible connection between prosmicuity and dishonesty. You still haven't shown one"

You're right, I haven't shown one!!!:speech: Oh, oh, oh yeah...wait...I wasn't trying to. I've shown how promiscuity is detrimental because it might provide evidence of an inconsistency in the accuser's actions.

Don't think so

"Not true. Criminal trials deal with "beyond reasonable doubt". Civil trials may be settled on balance of probability though."

....does anyone know where I can find an emoticon that shows my head exploding into confetti and then being crapped on by a village of hamsters?...anyone? "Beyond a reasonable doubt" has everything to do with probability. I'll go ahead and ask my next question in advance since I can guess what you'll say. What experience do you have with the legal system?

Some experience. You?

"Quote:
Now say that it was brought to their attention and supported by witnesses that this woman does on a regular basis go to bars, pick up men, and sleep with them. Considering the similiarity between this situation and the many other similiar situations in which she did have sex with the man she went home with, this provides evidence (not empirical but probable) that she had the intention of sleeping with the man she went home with the night she claims she was raped.


You keep repeating this and it doesn't get any more true. "

You are absolutely wrong.

Shame you can't show why, really

"It would be detrimental for the social and cultural reasons others have outlined above. It would not be detrimental to her credibility if it were not for those prejudices, and in fact, as I have said, could equally well be imagined to support her credibility. In fact it does neither and should be (and is) inadmissable"

This statement is one made by people who wish to invalidate a perfectly rational line of argument by making it seem prejudiced.

Don't think so. What is rational about it?

As I showed in my last post, it would be relevant,

Don't think so

you're not being able to see this is evidence of your own prejudices. As for it being supportive of her credibility...well, testimonies would determine that.

I suggest it could be taken to support either conclusion if prior prejudice was not in play. My own prejudices are neither here nor there. What testimonies?

As for your links. I don't read them. If you can't take the time to produce a coherent argument from your own words rather than stringing together a bunch of articles loosely related to the to your point, then I don't feel the need to take my time and read them.

Can't please all the people all of the time. Some folk prefer independent evidence, and some folk prefer the distillation of the other person's views and to engage with that. I generally am more comfortable with the latter, as I am not an academic. However since you did not know I was still in this thread I suspect you read neither links nor posts, at least some of the time. That is pretty indefensible, IMO

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]
Are you accusing me of being rude? Can you put that in a file and label it "Things I Already Know" [/QUOTE]

Forum etiquette, dear one, that's what I would ask of you. But I dont think asking would be enough.

[Darzog]

Well I just finished reading this whole thread (wow :speech: )!

@DW: Regarding your example of the woman claiming rape after the guy wasn't interested in her... I don't think this supports allowing sexual history into court. This situation would have to be dealt with using witnesses and possibly prior legal claims by the victim. It's possible that if the witnesses didn't come forward this would have ended badly, but you can say that of many other situations. You have to assume that if there are witnesses they will come forward, trying to build a buffer in case it doesn't happen can unbalance things too much.

@Fiona and Snoopy: Going way back to the discussion of the level of devestation of different events (specifically rape vs. false accusations) there is one key point that I noticed that I didn't see in your discussion. The level of devestation for someone being convicted wrongly or going free wrongly isn't just a comparison between someone being raped and someone imprisoned/shamed/etc. There is a subtle difference because no matter what happens to the defendant, the victim is still raped. So you have to compare the additional devestation of the defendant going free (when he's guilty) vs. being wrongly convicted of rape. In that case, I would have to agree with Snoopy that a defendant being wrongly accused of rape would cause more devestation than the additional devestation to a victim if their attacker goes free. Most of the emotional impact is from the rape itself, and even though there is additional fear that the attacker is free, I think that being put in prison and labeled as a sex offender is more devestating.

That doesn't mean that I agree with Snoopy's position, but I did want to make that distinction.

@Dottie: Regarding risk taking, I agree that the risks that a victim takes has no relevance on whether a crime was committed or not. And in general while a victim's behavior may have made them a more succeptible/likely victim, that does not change the fact that a crime did or did not occur. In a trial, the only purpose is to determine whether a crime occured (sentencing is separate and can have more emotional discussions). That doesn't absolve the victim from their responsibility to act to protect themselves, but it does not have any impact on whether an event is illegal. Should a woman take precautions (not walking alone at night, take self-defence classes, etc)? Absolutely. Does that make rape/assault/theft that happens to her less illegal? No.

[quote="Chanak]Let's face it: if the accused is truly innocent"]
I can't fully agree here. Too often there is not solid physical evidence of what happened, or there are more than one explanation for the physical evidence. All court cases aren't CSI episodes. The reason you need to add in circumstantial evidence is that things aren't always cut-and-dried, and even when they are they aren't always accurate. Some amount of supporting evidence, even if it isn't pure fact can help paint a more complete picture. But it can't be lopsided, so both sides have to give their "extra" evidence and it is up to the jury to determine how everything stacks up and what is the most plausible explanation and then finally to apply the reasonable doubt comparison (for US trials anyway).

@Lestat: Unfortunaly, I don't think that there is a logical blank that can be filled in that will satisfy you. The only complaint I have with your request is that you are trying to hold this one question to a higher standard than any other set of evidence. You want an explanation how sexual history can be directly and truthfully applied to every scenario. It doesn't exist. But by the same standard physical examinations should not be allowed. Bruises can come from falling down the stairs, walking into a table, getting jumped on by a dog, or even planted intentionally. Vaginal bruising can be due to rough, consentual sex. So these types of medical exams don't always show the truth of a situation either, but you can string together several sets of supporting evidence to paint an accurate picture. You can use the same colors to paint an inaccurate picture, but that is the reason we have a jury system, to weigh the likelihood of each version of events and determine what is the most plausible scenario.

That being said, I do not think that sexual history should be allowed in court because the slight chance that it could be useful is far outweighed by the ability to abuse the information and manipulate the jury. I think that more factual evidence should be used instead such as medical reports, legal filings (this can be abused if the victim is a prostitute or similar but it is difficult to make absolute distinctions that work for every case).

And I do have to point out that the presumption of innocent until proven guilty does not apply to rape (or pedophilia). Most people that I know assume that someone is guilty as soon as they hear of an accusation. Ironically enough, when people change their mind it is almost always due to hearing about the sexual history of the victim. Note that this is just my own personal observations of the people around me and the cases heard through local media. This is not from a study, is not supported by fact and has nothing to do with what happens in a courtroom.

[snoopyofour]

@Fiona

"Don't think so"

That's a shame. Well you're wrong. There's not really a whole lot to it.

"Don't think so"

I don't care.

"Some experience. You?"

What experience? Or should I just assume that you watch Judge Judy.

"Shame you can't show why, really"

I can and I have. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but state you're opinions again and again with no arguments of your own and supporting your opinions with whatever non-peer reviewed article you can find that happens to say what you need it to say even though it rarely does that.

"Don't think so. What is rational about it?"

I don't have the patience to explain to you what rationality is or how arguments based on probability and consistency qualify.

"Don't think so"

Don't care. If you don't have an argument I don't have a reason to pay attention.

"I suggest it could be taken to support either conclusion if prior prejudice was not in play. My own prejudices are neither here nor there. What testimonies?"

No it couldn't, she goes home with him. She sleeps with guys she goes home with. She wanted to sleep with him. BTW this is a syllogism too. Your prejudices are here, there, and everywhere (you don't hide them very well). What testimonies? I halfway want to be a jerk about this but it isn't even worth it. The accused and the victim, of course.

[snoopyofour]

Luis, buddy, if I tied my hands and legs together, hung myself from a light fixture, and typed with my tongue I could not be more restrained than I am right now.

PS: Why haven't you answered my other post? I still don't understand what you were talking about 2 or 3 posts ago.

@Darzog

"In a trial, the only purpose is to determine whether a crime occured (sentencing is separate and can have more emotional discussions). That doesn't absolve the victim from their responsibility to act to protect themselves, but it does not have any impact on whether an event is illegal. Should a woman take precautions (not walking alone at night, take self-defence classes, etc)? Absolutely. Does that make rape/assault/theft that happens to her less illegal? No."

I don't think anyone disagrees here. What I, and I think Dottie, were saying was that people have a responsibility to protect themselves but this has nothing to do with the trial.

At this time, after talking with Dottie, my position is undecided. I think that the argument boils down to something very hard to decide. Sexual evidence can be relevant to the case but the question is does this relevance outweigh the numerous occasions when it is abused and simply used as slander. This is what I'm unable to make my mind up on.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]Luis, buddy, if I tied my hands and legs together, hung myself from a light fixture, and typed with my tongue I could not be more restrained than I am right now. [/QUOTE]

It is your fault. You should be more flexible, at least a little, and concede a single point to someone. You are not the owner of the truth, did you know?

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]PS: Why haven't you answered my other post? I still don't understand what you were talking about 2 or 3 posts ago.
[/QUOTE]

I regret having posted that answer, and I prefer we wont discuss that or I'll be deeply involved again, we'll discuss again, then again, and then, in the end, nobody will win, as this thread is turning into a battlefield ready to be nuked. Nobody will win, everyone will go down.

[shana]

Nevermind!!

[snoopyofour]

Luis, read above post. I've already conceded the point to Dottie. He hasn't decided the matter for me but he's caused me to have to rethink my position, which is understandable since he is the only one who has actually argued with me. Arguing as opposed to just shouting opinions. No one is going to change my, or any intelligent human's, mind by simply denying their arguments without reason or counter-arguments.

And I fail to see how us talking about something as innocuous as what kind of girls we like would cause some kind of battle royal.

@Shana, that's easy enough. Just say something I don't agree with. Because apparently arguing for your ideas isn't cool here. Only speak your mind if you plan on caving when you find out your mind is in the minority.

EDIT: I just made a pretty stupid assumption about Dottie. I apologize if I just mis-labeled you.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]Luis, read above post. I've already conceded the point to Dottie. He hasn't decided the matter for me but he's caused me to have to rethink my position, which is understandable since he is the only one who has actually argued with me. Arguing as opposed to just shouting opinions. No one is going to change my, or any intelligent human's, mind by simply denying their arguments without reason or counter-arguments. [/QUOTE]

Reflect upon the bold part.

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]And I fail to see how us talking about something as innocuous as what kind of girls we like would cause some kind of battle royal.[/QUOTE]
Its discriminating, Snoopy. It hurts people. Please be more polite.


[QUOTE=snoopyofour]@Shana, that's easy enough. Just say something I don't agree with.[/QUOTE]

And this doesnt help (that's for you too, shana).

[dragon wench]

[QUOTE=Luis]this thread is turning into a battlefield ready to be nuked. Nobody will win, everyone will go down.[/QUOTE]

I'm inclined to agree with the above.

Guys, I was aware I was opening up a can of worms when I began this thread, but I didn't fully anticipate it would turn into the debacle that it has. I posted this topic, because I find the philosophical and legal concepts involved extremely interesting, and I've enjoyed reading the various perspectives brought forward.
But, I have to admit, I've been very close to asking that a SYM mod close this thread. I'd rather that it stayed open.... However, please... as the starter of this thread, I request a stop to the bickering.

Thanks

[snoopyofour]

"Its discriminating, Snoopy. It hurts people. Please be more polite."

If it makes you happy, ok.

[ik911]

I'd rather see this thread closed. It seems a stand-off has developed and the parties cannot come to a conclusion. Instead, things are getting out of hand and tensions are running high. The matters are affecting the debaters personally, which should not, but certainly does in this case, have an effect on the discussion. It is now time to reflect on what has been said, as I am convinced there is a lot to be processed by everyone posting and reading in this topic. I suggest we let this cool for at least a week and then see if the parties wish to continue their arguements, objectively and reasonably, or if we should keep it at this, unresolved but experienced.

[Dottie]

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]Now say that it was brought to their attention and supported by witnesses that this woman does on a regular basis go to bars, pick up men, and sleep with them. Considering the similiarity between this situation and the many other similiar situations in which she did have sex with the man she went home with, this provides evidence (not empirical but probable) that she had the intention of sleeping with the man she went home with the night she claims she was raped. [/QUOTE]

The first problem is that consent can be withdrawn at any point, and that she does have sex with strange men does not suggest whether she often or rarely rejects strange men. I can walk home with 100 girls and eventually have sex with 50 of them, another person can walk home with one girl and have sex with her. My late rejection rate is 50%, the other persons is 0%.

The second, and imo more serious, problem is that none of the above sexual profiles makes the victim more likely to lie, which is the quality that we should look for. Anyone can be victim to a rape, and anyone can decide to withdraw consent at a late point. If there is a lack of evidence you have to go on trustworthiness, or the existance or non-existance of a motiv for false rape allegations not on some other unrelated quality.