Rape Shield Laws-Just or Unjust?

In my personal opinion, this is another law which has good intents, but has been twisted by lawyers and judges and is horrifically unfair in many cases.

What was meant to protect women from humiliation of disclosing many sexual encounters has turned into a means of removing valuable and relevant information in order to guarantee a conviction.

Let me say that not all information about a person's sexual history is relevant, what a person did 30(or even 5 months ago) years ago is no consequence to a rape case. There is a limited timeframe that should accessible to the defense in order to make a case that any bruises or injuries could have come from another person. In essence, by excluding all information, the guilt is placed squarely on the defendants shoulders and he has to prove he's not guilty. Now anyone who knows anything about our legal system knows that the very basis of it depends on the ideal that you are innocent until proven guilty. The basis of our legal system is compromised when the defendant can not get a fair trial and must prove their innocence.


In the not so distant past, judges have excluded information such as past rape allegations that were proven false on the grounds that they were not relevant. How on earth is a previous false rape allegation not relevant?

Thankfully, many such abuses of the rape shield law have been overturned, but is it right to leave a persons life in the balance and hope that an appeals court will overturn the decision?

Why do we operate under the assumption that when there is smoke there is fire?


so i ask, should relevant information be withheld from court in order to protect the accuser? Should a persons sexual history of the past 72 hours(as was used in the kobe case) be inadmissible, even when another persons bodily fluids were found?

Do the rights of the accuser trump the rights which we have always granted the defendant?

here are some articles on the darker side of the rape shield laws..

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_9_33/ai_82078810

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dy....equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/000036.html

 

No, in the American Justice System, the burden of proof is on the Prosecution, not the defense. The Prosecution has to prove the crime, all the defendant has to do is have his lawyer defend the charges, he does NOT have to "prove his innocence."

No one looks into the past of mugging victims, or assault victims or even murder victims. Rape is RARELY falsely reported.

If someone attacked YOU would you want your past to be under scrutiny?

 

The IDEAL in the american justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty, but is a complete and utter fallacy, especially when rape shield law is involved. If the defense can not even examine the RECENT HISTORY(i.e. 72 hours before/after) then the defendant can not get a fair trial.

If i have consentual sex with a lady and she turns around to charge me with rape, i think it is fair that she should have to say who else she had sex with right around the same time i had sex with her. By not allowing that, you elitimate the possibility that someone else could have raped the woman or even the fact that she could be making up the act. You put the burden on the defendant to prove he's not guilty because no one else can even be considered to have raped the woman.

as i said before, what a woman did 30 years ago makes no difference, unless of course she reported a false rape case(the only thing, imo, that would be admissible from so long ago).

Yes, most cases are rarely falsely reported, but the fact that innocent people have gone to jail, should be enough to call for change. There is very little defense a man has against a woman who says he raped her, very little.

And "victims" dont get put on trial for other crimes? Remember the OJ simpson case? Numerous times they attacked the character of nicole brown simpson to point out that she had bad dealings and someone else could have killed her. Not only was she a victim, but she was dead!

Yes, an accuser should have to tell the events surrounding the crime, just like everyone else. For instance, in the kobe bryant case, the "victim(which she wasnt allowed to be called)" had sex right after she had sex with kobe bryant, under the rape shield law in most states(which colorado rightly overuled) would not allow that evidence to be used in court. How on earth is that right or fair?!

 

Actually, yes, some murder victims do in fact have the pasts "looked into".

But rape is a totally different issue. First of all, yes, rape is falsely reported, approximately 6% of the time. That's a significant number. And that number only reflects the number of false rape alligations that were proven. There are no doubt many men sitting in jail for rapes they didn't commit. Although that's not always because of false rape alligations, rather because of shoddy police work.

When it comes to rape, many feminists will tell you, they are committed behind closed doors by a person that the alleged victim knows. As a result, it has to be determined whether the accuser is credible. It is therefore only logical to delve into that person's past.

How would you like it if you were falsely accused of rape and the legal system was structured so that there was virtually no way of proving this? Sound fair?

Rape is a serious crime, and being falsely accused of rape is devistating, as it is a stigma (even if one is found to be innocent) that is difficult to shake. False rape alligations should be a crime, the punishment as severe as for rape itself.

 

Sorry, but the defendant's right to a fair trial, in which the outcome could determine the rest of his life, outweighs the alleged victim's right to not be asked embarassing questions.

 

excellent point.

 

I agree, Kandahar.

 

But if she had sex after the "rape", that's not her past. Her past is before the the rape. It shouldn't be covered, in my opinion.

Seriously, though, if I was raped, my character shouldn't have anything more to do with it than what I was wearing.

Note to the guys: Don't have sex with psycho-bitches who might falsely cry "rape".....especially the famous guys. There are stupid twits out there who want what you have......

 

the past is from the time of the trial not the time of the incident.

No, you're right, your character shouldnt have anything to do it with. The fact that you may be a hooker or just sleep around a lot should not persuade anyone to the fact that you werent raped. However, the point of bringing up other people who you slept with in the vicinity of the supposed rape, is to show any injuries that may have been inflicted, could have come from other sources, therefore, introducing reasonable doubt.

 

You all talk about woman getting raped. What about men? There are tons of men getting raped nowadays. Many of the rapists actually being woman. Just felt like I had to put that here...

 

Really? Womyn raping men? Do you have sources for "tons" of men in this situation?

 

You seem to find it ridiculous that a woman could rape a man..?

 

Not all the rapists are women, many are though. Most of them are men raping male adolecents and young men though.

 

I don't think it is impossible, (there are some female sexual predators, who prey on young boys, like that teacher who had two children with one of her students) but are there "tons" of this going on? Do you have references? Links? Ect?

 

Look at the catholic church... would that be considered rape?

 

Huh? There are womyn raping men in the Catholic church? I must have missed something?

 

I meant men raping men, as I was talking about the generaly idea of men being raped, not necessarily by women... Was it that hard to understand..?

 

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1391405,00.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708/altmrfa3.html#Rape

http://www.feminista.com/archives/v1n7/stoltenberg.html

http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2003/as_20030624p592_rape.asp

And what about that woman who stacked up naked male prisonor's bodies? She probably raped some of THEM too.

The case of men being raped is often worse, since they are generally not taken serious.And many woman take confort in that,and claim to have been raped eventhough they themselves are the rapists. But I think that's so unfair, I'm a femenist, but I also hate it if woman take guys as a barrier. My opinion on femenism isn't that we hide, or blame everything on guys, but more that we should prove that we're just as good as them, the other way is actually weakening society's view on woman, making us look 'inferior', which I believe none of us want. SO STOP BLAMING EVERYTHING ON MALES! THAT MAKES US LOOK EVEN MORE WEAK!!!

 

This is a sticky subject. Women have a hard time even reporting rape because they are afraid to be made to look like tramps or sluts.

I think if there were any proven false rape allegations in her past, however, those are completely relevant to any trial. My father used to be a police officer, and said that they would occasionally get girls in crying rape after they had been out all night and didn't want to explain to their parents where they had been.

However, when a woman is raped she needs to feel comfortable enough coming forward with these alligations and not be completely embarrassed and shamed by the defense. Or by the media.


Rape is so prevelant in our society that you will likely meet a plethera of women throughout your lifetime that have been raped. It is a MAJOR problem. We have got to level the playing field for these women, becuase this thing is worse than a plague. 1 in 4 was the last number I read.

 

Again--what about men?!?!?!