GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Fiona]Yes I know. But the instances of people lying get a very high profile compared to the frequency of occurrence, I think[/QUOTE]
But you have to understand the Kafka-esque fear of waking up one morning to a set of handcuffs, Miranda rights and no allibi for the night before all because you spilled coffee on Michelle at work yesterday...

[QUOTE=Lestat] A history of promiscuity and sleeping on the first night is no proof of dishonesty.
[/QUOTE]

True, but it is essential to the defendant's case since the accusation stems from not satisfying that promiscuity. Circumstantial (sp) evidence and jury bias might condem the man without such proof that the woman expected sex but did not get it.


(this has never happened by the way)
And yes, I meant that the scenario up to that point had not happened to me. I bit of misplaced humor perhaps.

[QUOTE=Fiona]Originally Posted by Fiona
But the instances of people lying get a very high profile compared to the frequency of occurrence, I think[/QUOTE].
You really think people lie less often than they get caught lying?

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]But you have to understand the Kafka-esque fear of waking up one morning to a set of handcuffs, Miranda rights and no allibi for the night before all because you spilled coffee on Michelle at work yesterday...[/QUOTE]That still doesn't give any reason why sexual history should be included... again the defendant has the presumption of innocence on his side. This is enough of an advantage for me to exclude sexual history of the (presumed) victim. Any "history" introduced should be clearly relevant to the case.

Promiscuity is not a relevant factor in rape cases.

And mind you, I'm saying all this after having passed quite some time in contexts where the risk of false accusation was considerably higher than in any US or European setting.

[QUOTE=Dowaco]
.
You really think people lie less often than they get caught lying?[/QUOTE]

I am sorry Dowaco. I do not understand what you mean

[QUOTE=Lestat]That still doesn't give any reason why sexual history should be included... again the defendant has the presumption of innocence on his side. This is enough of an advantage for me to exclude sexual history of the (presumed) victim. Any "history" introduced should be clearly relevant to the case.

Promiscuity is not a relevant factor in rape cases.

And mind you, I'm saying all this after having passed quite some time in contexts where the risk of false accusation was considerably higher than in any US or European setting.[/QUOTE]
No, no, no I wasn't saying it should; my answer to DW's question has always been an emphatic no... You misunderstand me. I'm just going to stop talking for awhile, because this is again just idle chit-chat on my part. I apologize for interrupting this serious argument again (honestly, no sarcasm). *sigh*

@ Tony. I am afraid I took that as entirely tongue in cheek.

And to be honest it was welcome

[QUOTE=Fiona]@ Tony. I am afraid I took that as entirely tongue in cheek. [/QUOTE]
Well that makes two of us...

@Fiona:
You said:"But the instances of people lying get a very high profile compared to the frequency of occurrence, I think"

Meaning, I presume, that while this scenario may happen, it does not happen that often and when it does, it gets a lot of press.

My retort (in retorical format) was meant to state my belief that lying occurs more often than is found out. That is, the people caught lying are high profile while the frequency of occurence is unknown. In other words, I believe that lying is rampant on both sides of most court cases.

Oh I see. Well your interpretation of what I meant is right. And you are of course correct that the actual amount of lying may be higher than is detected. That is quite likely, though as you say we cannot know. I do know that the conviction rate for rape is quite shockingly low, even in the US. And since the rate is something like twice as high in the US as it is here I suppose I must choose to believe that women lie much more often in this country or that there is something wrong with our system in terms of prosecuting rapists. The latter is more persuasive to me

And yes, in the press, women who lie are very heavily reported indeed. You would think it was a common occurence though the numbers are very small

[QUOTE=Fiona]Oh I see. Well your interpretation of what I meant is right. And you are of course correct that the actual amount of lying may be higher than is detected. That is quite likely, though as you say we cannot know. I do know that the conviction rate for rape is quite shockingly low, even in the US. And since the rate is something like twice as high in the US as it is here I suppose I must choose to believe that women lie much more often in this country or that there is something wrong with our system in terms of prosecuting rapists. The latter is more persuasive to me[/QUOTE]
Are you talking specific numbers or percentages? Because if the conviction rate for rape is only twice as high as it is in Scotland, number-wise, you're probably talking about rape happening every day in Scotland.

Sorry Chim, I thought rate indicated we are talking percentages and stuff

There is some information in the links I posted earlier. And some here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5078398.stm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/cpp.htm

[QUOTE=Fiona]... there is something wrong with our system in terms of prosecuting rapists. The latter is more persuasive to me[/QUOTE]

I agree that its probably more to do with our legal system and a combination of the police not taking every case as seriously as they should and the difficulty that must be involved in trying to prove that no consent was given.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Anyone can lie.[/QUOTE]

I can't lie.

My mother is a retired federal judge and I often talked to her about issues like these, and I still do. We often have the same arguments in the sense of how one looks at the law because it is hard for me to exclude my emotions while she looks at it all in sort of a cold clinical way - I always remember what she says though, and it matters in a number of issues - if it is actually relevant to the case at hand it matters, otherwise it's just talk. Someone's sexual history has nothing to do with a case where one prosecutes rape of the said person and therefore is not admitted into evidence. Simple and rather clear cut really.

The problem I believe is in the systems we have here in Europe and the one in the US and that is of the jury. Jury who is composed of humans who are *NOT* educated when it comes to law and will react like I do sometimes and that is with emotions, due to their preconceived ideas about morality etc. In this case I can certainly understand why one would want to introduce such evidence, it could get the rapist off, even though he/she is guilty. If there is no jury but a judges panel it is much more difficult to actually influence them with something like this, or at least that's been the experience, these things are simply dismissed as irrelevant.

And just for discussion sake I do believe that rape in general is a very problematic thing for our societies, no matter where we live. From places like Congo where it is an every day occurrence with no consequences for the perpetrators at all, to our 'modern' societies where I sincerely believe the victims still don't have enough protection. Women are avoiding reporting it due to the ridiculously difficult procedures they must go through, the hassle, the societal norms and lack of acceptance, to the religious problems they have due to it. Also one must not forget raped men, for that is a whole different ball game, and also a huge problem. But either way, I cannot connect one's sexual history to rape; it simply has no baring (sp?).

[QUOTE=Ashen]Also one must not forget raped men, for that is a whole different ball game, and also a huge problem.[/QUOTE]

Was that a pun?

[QUOTE=Damuna_Nova]Was that a pun? [/QUOTE]

:laugh: I haven't even noticed it, before you pointed it out

So basically, in cases that involved alchohol and drug-use and sufficiently crippled decision making capacities, if we leave out sexual history (of both parties involved!? how can people manage to be so single-minded here?!) then we have a situation in which a jury must decided on the events that took place between those two people in private. That's perfectly reasonable right? Oh wait, the guy accidentally forgot to turn on the various video camera's and recording devices he normally has stationed throughout his living area to guard himself against those numerous occasions when he has to defend himself against completely fictitious rape charges. Yes that is the perfect paradigm of equality. Women shouldn't have to be responsible for keeping themselves out of shady and compromising situations but men should at least have the brains to constantly be keeping hard records of their every waking (and sleeping) lives. my god. Ok so what do we have. We have a situation where a jury has to decide based on either circumstancial or no evidence. If they decide falsley in favor of the man then the woman must live with this horrible tragic thing that happened to her (not denying that rape is an awful thing). If they decide falsley in favor of the women then the man is forever branded with one of the most defaming stigmas in our society (second only to pedophile), his life wrecked, and he will probably be recieving some jail time where he will likely be raped himself. Yes, this is the right and good way of things. Men deserve to get screwed by the system right? Because women are angels and don't ever do anything malicious or cruel.
I apologize if I sound hostile or hotheaded about this but after being sexually assaulted by 3 women, I should say girls, in my life (those being at a time when my misguided morals prevented me from using the only language that is appropriate for such a situation. the girls revelled in the fact that I wouldn't hit them) I am tired of hearing objections to anything that puts men on a level playing field during such cases.

@ Snoopy: And if your case (when you were sexually assaulted) came before a court (I don't know if it did), would you like to have your sexual history been dragged into court?

This has nothing to with men and women, but with victims and and perpetrators (as you yourself clearly indicate). Men can as well be victims in rape cases as women.

Yes, I know that men and women can both be victims and perpetrators, I just used the stereotypical gender slots to save space and to accentuate my point. And yes, I would want both my and my assailants sexual history to be used as evidence.

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]Yes, I know that men and women can both be victims and perpetrators, I just used the stereotypical gender slots to save space and to accentuate my point. And yes, I would want both my and my assailants sexual history to be used as evidence.[/QUOTE]As evidence of what exactly?