GameBanshee Forums

Just to make it clear, there's a lot of ill-feeling being tossed about, here, and I'm seeing quite a bit of it that does not originate with Snoopyofour. I'm asking everyone involved to deal with the questions being asked, instead of replying with displays of kindergarten attitude. Not to make too fine a point, just in case I wasn't clear enough: drop it. Nothing is gained by verbal nose-thumbing in this thread.

[QUOTE=fable]Nothing is gained by verbal nose-thumbing in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Any thread for that matter. Fable could you add a virtual boxing part somewhere in the site? That way certain people could duke it out

This is a he said she said topic anyways. I personally think any history that is relative to the case should be admissible. Can't make a good case without all the background information.

[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.

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.[/QUOTE]

I agree fully with Lestat. The legal/criminal history of both the victim and the perpetrator are relevant, but not the sexual behaviour of any of them. I don't count neither previous sexual molestation from the perpetrator nor previous false rape claims as "sexual behaviour". I count both as legal history.

I don't see any reason to treat rape differently from other violent crimes. Medical examination, physical evidence, forensic evidence, material witnessess...a lot of crimes cannot be "proven beyond reasonable doubt" and since this is the consensus standard for criminal cases, there will be more criminals going free than innocent people convicted.

It should also be noted that in Western culture a vast majority of rapes occur within couple relationships. If we add ex-partners, the majority becomes even larger. (I haven't seen statistics from other parts of the world - in 51 countries rape within marriage is not a crime, so that makes it difficult to compare). Those of you who believe the alleged victim's sexual history should be taken into account in court, how does this apply in these situations? And what about prostitutes getting raped?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]And what about prostitutes getting raped?[/QUOTE]
I only want to address this one line, as I'd rather not get tangled in this discussion again; last time I did, I went off on a tangent and Dottie thankfully pointed this out to me. I don't know how it is in Sweden, but with prostitution illegal here in the States, a prostitute can't simply just go to the cops for help. They would be afraid to come forward if raped, because they would be punished for breaking the law. So not many rape cases involving prostitutes make it to the courts here. I may be mistaken, though, but that's the way it was in the not-too-distant past around here.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]I only want to address this one line, as I'd rather not get tangled in this discussion again; last time I did, I went off on a tangent and Dottie thankfully pointed this out to me. I don't know how it is in Sweden, but with prostitution illegal here in the States, a prostitute can't simply just go to the cops for help. They would be afraid to come forward if raped, because they would be punished for breaking the law. So not many rape cases involving prostitutes make it to the courts here. I may be mistaken, though, but that's the way it was in the not-too-distant past around here.[/QUOTE]
It's true, not only because they could they be arrested for prostitution but also because they aren't likely to recieve any sympathy from anybody in the legal system they'd have to deal with... The cops, a jury, a judge, etc. Maybe they wouldn't get arrested, but by just going to the cops and her profession inevitably getting revealed she'll be on their radar in the future. Even moreso than the cops, however, they'd probably be scared of retribution from the person they're charging: if they could find her once they can most certainly find her again and, once again, cops aren't going to go out of their way to protect a known prostitute. It's sad. There are millions of cases like this, I'm sure, every year that aren't reported.

That being said, were a prostitute to actually take her casse to court and everything her sexual history should still not be relevant.

Chimaera182 wrote:I don't know how it is in Sweden, but with prostitution illegal here in the States, a prostitute can't simply just go to the cops for help. They would be afraid to come forward if raped, because they would be punished for breaking the law. So not many rape cases involving prostitutes make it to the courts here.

Tony] It's true wrote:
The situation is similar in Sweden although prostitution is not a crime here. In Sweden, the Land of the Middle Road selling sex is not illegal but buying sex is, as well as pimping. The misguided idea behind this is that the sex-sellers should be offered some protection (health-care, drug abuse rehabilitation, protection from violence and abuse etc) but not the buyers. Obviously, the whole sex-market moved underground when buying sex was prohibited, same as if selling had been prohibited. Sure the prostitutes have a theoretical possibility to go to the police and social services without risk for legal punishment if they need help, but the problem is that many are involved in other illegal activities (drug use, illegal immigration) and they may also be afraid of their pimp if they have one. Then of course we have the same problems as Tony describes, that prostitutes generally are viewed as less reliable and less important people. There was a study of rape victims recently in Sweden, and the results showed that the legal system had a strong tendency to take rape reports at face validity if the victim was a highly educated woman living in a long term relationship, whereas the victims who were most questioned and less believed where just exactly prostitutes.

Regardless, there has been some cases of rape against prostitutes where the perpertrator was found guilty and was sentenced. Judging from anonymous interview studies, there is a vast underreporting of rape and other violence against prostitutes.

That being said, were a prostitute to actually take her case to court and everything her sexual history should still not be relevant.

Completely agree. Selling sex is a business deal between the prostitute and the buyer. If you work at a bank, does that mean an armed robber should be allowed to force you with violence to give him money?

@Dottie, you have a good point. I still think there are cons to both sides of the argument but I just don't have the energy to debate this anymore.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Selling sex is a business deal between the prostitute and the buyer. If you work at a bank, does that mean an armed robber should be allowed to force you with violence to give him money?[/QUOTE]

I agree with this myself completely, but this is one area where the US justice system does not. The majority of judges and juries would view a sexual assault against a prostitute as "something they risk." It doesn't help that the entire activity itself is illegal as well. If this fact in the history of a violent crime victim were to be brought up at a criminal trial by the Defense, I can guarantee that it would not be dismissed by the judge as inconsequential to the case...and the jury would most certainly be affected by it. Bias against prostitutes who are victims of violent crimes is rampant in my country.

[QUOTE=Dottie]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.[/QUOTE]
I agree.