GameBanshee Forums

@Fiona

[QUOTE=Fiona]Ok. I did miss where you pointed out a flaw, and I am still missing it. You stated without evidence that one thing (being falsely accused of rape) is more devastating than another (rape and /or false acquittal of a rapist). So you accept that certain unpleasant events are more devastating than others. I suggest that the perceived horror of the particular event will be reflected in the lengths people will go to to avoid it. You clearly do not agree, but you do not show why not. On the one hand you say people will not do this (people do not care about possibilities until they happen); on the other you say you take steps to protect yourself against various possibilities. what is your position?

Assumng that on reflection you concede that people do take steps to avoid unpleasant experiences, are you really saying you take as much trouble and personal inconvenience to preserve your cigarettes as you do to avoid being mugged etc? I think you are in a minority if you do, but I could be wrong. I do not see where you have shown that my proposition would not help to resolve the relative impact of these different events: and you have proposed precisely nothing to support or even address your assertions about this. Forgive me if I do not take your bald word for it.[/QUOTE]

I thought your comment on what I said about car accidents was a joke but I guess you really didn't get it. My point is that even though something may be extremely devastating and entirely plausible, it does not always effect the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid it. What you said about avoiding oncoming cars is no more relevant than me saying "People who don't like to die...usually breath". Its so obvious it has no bearing on the argument. Avoiding incoming cars is hardly what I would call a conscious effort, although it may be for some people. Maybe some people must monologue with themselves "hmmm, there is a car. the car is coming at me. if i am struck by this car i will recieve bodily injury. i do not wish to recieve bodily injury. i will make an effort to not be hit by the car....ect ect I can't stand to write anymore of this. I could probably spell this out even more but honestly I don't feel like I should have to. And I'm fine with the consequences of that.

"You stated without evidence that one thing (being falsely accused of rape) is more devastating than another (rape and /or false acquittal of a rapist)."

Precisely, what evidence do you want. That it sucks to be falsley convicted of rape? Just use some sense. Consequences for 'victim': doesn't get the satisfaction/comfort of seeing accused go to jail and have their life ruined. Consequences for defendant: goes to jail and has life ruined. You can't ask me to take this seriously. Everytime I get into this debate with a girl she comes across as not caring about actual justice and being only concerned with women getting revenge on the men that rape them. Revenge has no place in court.

There you go again

You are right, Snoopy, this conversation is pointless. I can see no logic at all in much of what you say and I am bored

@Dottie, it may not be relevant but if I were falsley accused of rape and the girl who had accused me had also on prior occasions accused others of rape and they had not been convicted (or even if they had so long as the circumstances were similiar to mine0, I would sure as hell want the jury to know that. The attorneys and the jury can decide if the information is relevant. What I'm arguing is that it should absolutely be available for use. As it stands, as smart rapist could concievably rape endlessly and never be convicted. Don't you think that would change if those prior charges could be presented in court?

@Fiona, I've pasted this thread to two friends of mine. One a business major, and the other a fellow philosophy major. They both want to know why you won't just concede the point. You could keep arguing but rather than simply admitting you're argument is flawed and changing your approach you choose to fling one last insult at me and run off. Do you do this when having a real debate with a live person in front of you?

Snoopy you are going round in circles. You are not interested in facts, so far as I can see, and have adduced none. You are not interested in any method which might conceivably test your assertions. You clearly believe you have demonstrated something and I am afraid you have not made it clear to me what that is. While I might be dense it is not my responsibility to agree with you when you have made no case that I can see. Now you fall back on argument from authority?

As I said, I am bored. That is not an insult, it is a fact

"You are not interested in facts, so far as I can see, and have adduced none"

WHAT FACTS!!?? Fiona, I am racking my brain but I have no idea what factual information you want to talk about. You gave a theory about how you could measure the level of devastation of an event by the measures people took to avoid that event and I said that this is an unsound theory because it is violated all the time. What do you want facts on? That people die in car wrecks a lot? That people still get drunk and drive? Please, for the love explain to me what you think I'm not supporting.

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]@Dottie, it may not be relevant but if I were falsley accused of rape and the girl who had accused me had also on prior occasions accused others of rape and they had not been convicted (or even if they had so long as the circumstances were similiar to mine0, I would sure as hell want the jury to know that. The attorneys and the jury can decide if the information is relevant. What I'm arguing is that it should absolutely be available for use. As it stands, as smart rapist could concievably rape endlessly and never be convicted. Don't you think that would change if those prior charges could be presented in court?[/QUOTE]

Everyone agrees prior charges and accusations are relevant, but that is not the same as sexual history. Sexual history is the victims habits and experiences regarding sex, not regarding rape.

And the reason why it is hindering justice to bring it up is that courts have the habit of discussing everything from victims clothing to their promiscuity. Because these issues are, on regular basis, incorrectly interpreted as being relevant to rape cases they must be banned.

@Dottie, my understanding was that unless previous cases ended with convictions they could not be used as evidence within another case and that including them as sexual history would allow lawyers to get around this.

EDIT: Also what about circumstances like dragonwench's story where it never went to trial? Or what about the countless women who get raped but are too embarassed or frightened to take it to court. Shouldn't these still be considered relevant to the case and used?

Boys and girls, open way for snoopy, or he'll bring you down to tears...

Anyway, I'm afraid I must concour with Fiona, after reading the thread. So it is one business major versus the other, therefore its a draw. Is there a philosopher nearby?

snoopyofour wrote:@Dottie, my understanding was that unless previous cases ended with convictions they could not be used as evidence within another case and that including them as sexual history would allow lawyers to get around this.

I don't know how the laws are where you live, so can't comment on that.

I hope you see my point on why sexual history should not be admitted though?

EDIT: Also what about circumstances like dragonwench's story where it never went to trial? Or what about the countless women who get raped but are too embarassed or frightened to take it to court. Shouldn't these still be considered relevant to the case and used?

Of course should previous lies, accusations etc be considered.

@Dottie, oh yes. I understand how it can be abused but I don't see why it should be banned when any lawyer can refute the slanderous aspect of it with two words: "Objection, irrelevant".

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]@Dottie, oh yes. I understand how it can be abused but I don't see why it should be banned when any lawyer can refute the slanderous aspect of it with two words: "Objection, irrelevant".[/QUOTE]

Because evidence shows that it does affect the outcome of the trial. It might not be supposed to work like that, but it does.

aha, Luis, your black magic won't work on me this time. :laugh: ha ha ha. Actually... ...what are you agreeing to? And don't just say Fiona. I want to hear it from the horses mouth.

I'm at a loss to understand why anything concerning a victim needs to brought up at trial other than his or her whereabouts during the time of the alleged assault, and other information relating to physical evidence. True criminal justice strives to deal in knowns, not in ambiguities. Telling a judge or jury that a victim has made rape accusations in the past that did not result in convictions, or were determined by police to be false, is nothing but an attempt to side-step the justice process and secure a swift decision in favor of the defendant. It's rigging the entire process and is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

The validity of a victim's claim is run through a standard litmus test criminal investigators use prior to charges ever being officially brought against an alleged assailant. In other words, there is sufficient evidence to both apprehend and charge the individual(s) with the crime. The validity of the victim's claim is established by police and other law enforcement agencies as it is investigated. By the time it reaches trial, the Prosecution has no reason to doubt that the victim was actually assaulted.

Let's face it: if the accused is truly innocent, it will be revealed at the trial. An innocent verdict does not change the fact that something actually happened to the victim. No system is perfect and I concede that travesties do occur in courtrooms all over the world...but if you demand perfection, die and go to heaven, or somewhere similar.

Dottie, it's a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time since I've been asking & waiting that someone explains to me the logical connection as in the little sketch below.
Didn't have any answer. Not even an unsatisfactory answer.

So those proponents of having the sexual history admissible in court: please fill in blank.

The "logical connection," Lestat, that is usually put in that blank space is that the victim's dress or their past behavior is somehow relevant to the case in question. But the simple fact is, whether the victim is promiscuous has little to do with the rape in itself; it might have to do with the choosing of the victim, though. A male who knows how sexually-active a woman is might choose to approach her because he believes she is guaranteed sex. If she chooses--this being the key, naturally--not to go all the way with him, he may become annoyed for any number of reasons, and feel as though he is fully justified (for whatever other reasons, some of them the same) to get sex from her. That's the kind of defense that they try to build up at that point, and I don't see how that kind of defense would work to begin with. So why they would want sexual history of the victim in a case to try an accused rapist to be made available is beyond me.

Lestat. It goes like this

Still not filled in.

Sexual History ----> Truthfulness

Please fill in the intermediate logical steps. Still hasn't happened.

@ Chim: I know what your getting at, but nobody has yes filled in the blank(s) between the concepts "sexual history" and "truthfulness".

Way of dressing is in my mind only very tenuously connected in any logical way with sexual history and in no logical way with truthfulness.

Sorry Fiona, you ninja'd me. *sternly* But you we're not amongst the target audience for my question!

There is no logical connection, of course. But, as you see, that fact has nothing whatsoever to do with this argument.

Edit: Didn't mean to interfere. But you are not going to get an answer from your target audience, now are you?

Yeah, well, it's pretty much the closest thing to "logic" you'll ever get to put in that blank, and even that isn't very logical.

Fiona: LOL. True, sadly, but LOL (a lot of funny things in life usually are true).