It would only work as an analogy with the people who “justify” rape with “the slut deserved it” if they said the pirates should be let off. “They killed some missionaries? Eh, boys will be boys.”
No. And it wouldn’t be justified if it were a man being sentenced, either.
Ooops…:smack:
That saying was used in this rape trial. 3 guys raped a woman with an I.Q. of 64? Let’s put her sexual history on trial. Boys will be boys.
WARNING: What happened to this woman is very disgusting, and the link is very graphic in its descriptions. Be warned.
Yes. I find it truly disgusting and sexist towards both genders when used as an “excuse” that way. It boils down to a claim that women don’t count as people and hey, men are savages anyway so you can’t expect any better of them
-
The fact that a criminal defense attorney throws it out there doesn’t mean it’s true. It means he thinks it’s the best argument available.
-
I’m not sure if you’re actually suggesting this, but discussing the prior sexual history of a rape victim is not analogous to discussing how she dresses. The point is to establish that she might actually have consented, not that she deserved it because she’s a slut.
But consenting in previous situations doesn’t mean you’re necessarily any more likely to consent in a new situation. Especially since in that case those other times where she was in sexual situations were non consensual as well.
It means you’re more likely to have consented. I agree that there was no point in bringing it up in the linked case, assuming the victim could not actually consent due to impairment (is there a fixed legal IQ limit for that?)
Does it, though? Is someone who’s turned down sex many times and then decides to have it a more likely rape victim than someone who’s had lots of sex? I’d think the latter person might be more likely to be a victim of rape because people assume they’re going to consent and don’t take no for an answer.
I don’t think it does mean that, and certainly don’t think it means that to an extent that outweighs the prejudicial value. That’s the exact situation rape shield laws are designed to protect against. In my state, the only evidence of prior sexual history that is admissible is prior consensual sexual activity with the defendant.
I would say it is possible that dressing ‘like a slut’ may be a result of asking for it earlier in life - power of suggestion/intentions influencing the choice of clothes leading to the requested event. Or we get what we ask for. It just takes time for those things to manifest sometimes.
As such I’m not saying that the rape is justified, but recognition and revoking former ideals may be needed for prevention of future rapes and a healing of the need that sparked the idea of dressing like a slut.
You’re making an unnecessary assumption there, which is that the other side of the coin is a girl who turns down lots of sex. It may simply be a girl who doesn’t get offered any.
I think rape shield laws are a good debate topic, but I don’t really want to hijack this thread, so I’m not going to say any more about it here.
I’d say the best way to prevent further rapes is to shoot previous rapists in the face.
Maybe another thread would be in order then…it is an interesting topic.
Legal question here, as criminal law, and especially criminal procedure, are not my forte:
Prejudice to whom? The Crown/People? That’s the only party to the case aside from the defendant and the defendant does not suffer a prejudice through this line of questioning.
Is it common for the prosecuting party to benefit from protection so as not to suffer a prejudice, aside from sexual assault cases? I will confess to a lot of ignorance about criminal law but I got the impression that protection against prejudicial evidence was there to safeguard the rights of the accused, not those of the State.
Bah. The best way to prevent further rapes is nuclear holocaust.
If, however, you’re concerned about negative side effects of the preventive method, neither yours nor mine is particularly good.
Does how you dress have anything to do with rape? The only person I know who was raped was the mother of a kid I grew up with. She got attacked walking to the store. She was middle aged and fat.
What is provocative? Are men from some countries more prone to rape? Apparently middle east men can not help themselves when they see a woman dressed comfortably. The clothes made me do it. It was not my fault.
Perhaps they should sue spandex and Victoria’s Secret for causing them to act inappropriately?
Specifically, prejudice against the complaining witness, but that would also operate as prejudice in favor of the defendant.
No, it isn’t common. You are right to think that it’s unusual. The reason for that apparent reversal of normal process in cases of sexual assault is an historical one and also a pretty recent development.
As a general rule, if a defendant wants to introduce relevant character evidence about the alleged victim – for instance if an accused murderer is claiming self-defense, and wants to establish that the victim of the killing had a history of violent outbursts – that’s something we’ll allow. That was also traditionally the rule when it came to a claimed defense of consent to a rape charge. A defendant accused of rape used to be able to introduce evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim’s sexual conduct and opinion and reputation evidence about the victim (that is to say, “I did her” or “he is known in the neighborhood as a tramp” or “based on the way I’ve seen her act, she seems easy to me”).
Traditionally, though, there were also a lot of rules in place that made pressing charges very difficult for rape victims. A victim was required to abide by strict prompt reporting requirements. A victim’s testimony, by rule, had to be corroborated by additional evidence to be credited (which is not quite the same as saying the victim’s word is worthless, but is easily mistaken for it). The idea of marital rape didn’t even exist everywhere in the US until the 1990s. Judges used to give special cautionary instructions to juries in rape cases, saying that the jury should be sure to subject the victim’s testimony to strict scrutiny, because rape is such an easy allegation to make falsely. Victims were required to demonstrate that they “resisted to the utmost” in order to defeat a claim of consent. What this meant: are there bruises? Ripped clothing? Did you hit him? Bite him? Did you “resist by means of hands and limbs and pelvic muscles?” And so on. Not every court in every circumstance was like this, but on a very regular basis up through the 70s, a rape trial meant a circus during which the alleged victim had to run a pretty imposing gantlet of cross-examination and procedural rules just to make a complaint. Thus the phenomenon of the “victim on trial.”
As a result of all of that, there was a large movement that began to object to that kind of treatment of victims, and legal-types instituted fairly sweeping changes specifically to address it. Part of this was the development of rape shield laws, which limit the admissibility of evidence of the victim’s sexual history.
I hope that’s a fair answer. It’s certainly a special case compared to, say, the evidentiary procedures that apply to burglary and arson, and in a vacuum it is a fairly striking kind of protection, but I think the circumstances in which it arose bears out the need for it. I also think that because of that history, the subject isn’t at all a diversion from the main topic of the thread. I think the victim’s manner of dress and the victim’s prior sexual experiences can fairly be lumped together as kinds of evidence that would inappropriately be used to suggest an alleged victim is lying.
Dressing “like a a slut” is a non-starter re any debate as the issue of what is “slutty” or “not slutty” attire is so variable and contextual it’s impossible to parse out in any meaningful way beyond “I know when it see it”, and even then it’s only meaningful for you as an individual with respect to your perceptions.
The only thing she’s asking for is judgment (by others).
Unless you’re a rock star or a comic book character, who would want to dress like a slut, anyway? 