These “reports” are quotes from friends of the accused? Those probably should have been qualified in the original post.
And haven’t you heard of overzealous reporters trying to make a name for themselves? IMO the defense had nothing to do with the OD story.
From anna’s stats above, it seems that there’s a 2.5% chance that she is making a false accusation. If the odds are closer to even - if there was a 50% chance that she was making it up - your point would be valid.
I’ll say it again: The credibility of the accusor is quite simply not relevant to whether or not she was raped. Five women in two hundred lie about it: why are we so quick to assume that every woman is?
You’re right, it is hard to judge. But I can tell you with certainty that if my circumstances were such that I was (as you say) a “crack hooker,” and some pillar-of-the-community man raped me, I would be pretty pissed off that everyone automatically took his word over mine. Because, goodness knows, men who are pillars of the community never do things like that.
I understand that. The reasoning for allowing it is as you say. But the consequences are as I mentioned above (and I acknowledge that they are unintended) : if you are a respected member of the community, you pretty much can go and rape a hooker if you feel like it, because everyone will believe you and not her. There is a presumption that the woman is lying - witness this thread, for example.
In Canada there have been a few recent cases of exactly this: prostitutes went missing from Vancouver for years before anyone noticed or cared, now they are being found, chopped up and buried on a pig farm. The attitude towards the “credibility and motives” of prostitutes contributed to the relatively unconcerned attitude of the police towards it.
A big difference between this example and rape accusations can be seen if you examine the possible motives of the accusor. A random woman has little to gain from a false rape accusation - years of traumatic testimony, your sexual and psychological history paraded in front of the press, etc, in return for a chance at a settlement? Divorced people have quite a lot to gain - custody of children, in most cases.
No I meant “unrape-able”, as in cannot be raped. The term rape doesn’t apply to them, as it does “normal” women.
There are people who believe that prostitutes, because of their lifestyle, a prositute can not be raped. There are people who believe that husbands can’t rape their wives. That in their station in life, they must be receptive to sex, whether they want it or not.
It is very difficult to have a jury convict a man of raping a prositute…i would imagine in certain countries, let alone US states, it would be equally hard to convict a husband of rape as well…IMO.
Do you agree?
So what do you do? Let’s say that the guy did rape the prostitute, unless he beat the crap out her, how could you possibly convince a jury, that he forced her?
His character, his past, his credibility. I agree that the rape shield is good thing, but it doesn’t work in this type of crime, where the participants are aware of each other.
He didn’t drag her into the hotel room. He didn’t hide his face. They agree to go to a certain point and she changed her mind, but he would let her, when he was done he paid her.
That’s rape…but prove it, to a jury. You need to know about this guy to show a jury his pattern or he will walk.
Now my question is does the rape shield apply to him?
Cite on spousal rape:here
just in case.
I can’t speak for varied international laws, but in the US(AFAIK - state laws vary, I believe), and as far as the spirit of what you’re saying, I emphatically do not agree.
Not specifically the rape shield law, but what is admissable is decided based on the Federal Rules of Evidence mentioned by pravnik. Pertaining to character and credibility.
Then I suggest you read my link. The spirit of the law says differently.
The hell it doesn’t.
Nobody buys that bullshit about a husband not being able to rape his wife anymore, I don’t think it would be any harder to convict a husband than anybody else.
As for the prostitute, you are right that there is an irrational, hypocritical and misogynistic prejudice against prostitutes among many people, however that is not attributable to the credibility of prostitutes but to the ignorance of society.
BTW, it sounds like the OD may not be admissable anyway.
That marital rape thing is pretty archaic and unenforceable, holmes. Show me one time in the last 50 years where it’s been successfully used as a defense.
Not to be rude, but I think you are misinterpreting your own cites:
The proposed revisions being removal of the previously cited “special” circumstances. This is the spirit I mentioned, and the current trend in what society thinks of as rape.
Not taken that way…don’t worry, but I think you’re missing the point. Yes, the revisions are occuring, but people’s attitudes aren’t ocuring at the same speed. We have lots of laws concerning Race, but we still have a long way to go.
You left out the rest of the article…
That’s the spirit, I’m referring to…the good old boys who sit on juries and don’t consider this a crime, even if it’s not used as a defence.
So why yes you and Dtc are right about this being archaic, even the reporter knows that lots of archaic ideas influence the lives of people everyday. Even if it hasn’t been used as a defence in 50 years, you don’t think a wife would think twice about going to the police and saying her husband raped her, knowing the history of that type of charge carries?
BTW:Dtc how’s this defence
From Dtc
Let’s try again.Defence
I stand corrected. What a filthy, disgusting law.
it doesn’t have anything to do with victim credibility, though, it just says it’s ok to rape your wife. I am stunned that such a law still exists, I am even more stunned that “family rights” activists would aggressively support it.
Maybe you can remind what this has to do with the Kobe case?
A possible nit-pick: That appeal is from 1999. Do we have an update on that case, or any revisions of Arizona spousal rape law?
In any case, if you agree the perception/law is archaic, and we agree that the perception still exists amongst certain individuals in society - what exactly are we debating? 
Not quite. From the last cite:
Again, this article is from 1999.
Hey, DtC wanted one in 50 years, I’m done.
Nothing now, but re-read the thread, we’ve only just arrived at common ground. Although I was already here…
holmes
A different way of looking at this, perhaps:
In other words, both sides are presently attempting to make their cases publicly (without revealing too much about the hands they will play during the trial) because in a celebrity case, the court of public opinion is very important, and the future jurors are probably watching this on TV.
Let’s not forget the most important words in the American legal system: REASONABLE DOUBT. The defense does not have to prove that Kobe didn’t rape this girl. They just have to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the jury. That’s what the American Idol thing is, indirect as it may be, and the suicide thing a bit more directly.
I wouldn’t say it’s really relevant, but anything that damages the credibility of this girl’s accusations (regardless of its factual relationship to the case) is what they want. The prosecution is making its share of irrelevant statements too: who cares that the girl was in her choir and was a cheerleader? It doesn’t mean shit in real life. But it might make her seem more wholesome and trustworthy, thus more believable. The jury has to trust her, so she has to be a ‘good girl.’ The suicide thing sorta refutes that somewhat.
The prosecution, it seems, will be arguing based primarily on physical evidence (a rape kit, bruises or photos, evidence of torn clothes and vaginal tearing, perhaps Kobe had some minor cuts or bruises as well). That’s more straightforward, and we’ll see what they have in court.
There is plenty of posturing from BOTH sides right now. The DA said a few days ago that the case was a “slam dunk.” Both sides want to present a confident front (Kobe’s remark that “When everything comes clean, it will all be fine, you’ll see… I shouldn’t have to say anything.”) And of course, he’s also trying to appear contrite because he obviously cheated on his wife, if nothing else. Sorry for his mistake, innocent of his crime. That sort of thing.
None of the stuff we’ve seen is real evidence right now, it’s just a matter of public presentation. Because the defense won’t be relying on physical evidence - I’m assuming they don’t have security camera footage proving that Kobe was locked in the elevator the whole time or something - they have to assail the girl’s credibility. If there’s anything that might make her look bad, they’ll use it. Think back to the OJ trial for a minute: remember all the business with Mark Fuhrman and the word “nigger?” The defense was just trying to make it look like he was a racist to reduce his credibility. Now, who’s really going to believe that he was so racist he somehow stole OJ’s glove and samples of his blood and DNA and planted them? Nobody that I can think of. But it doesn’t matter. It’s more of a shady, innuendo kind of thing. Damaging credibility is the goal.
Does any of that make sense?
Please don’t interpret any of this as my approval or disapproval of anything. This is just how I see the tactics being used by both the prosecution and defense.
I disagree that the friends of the victim are talking with the approval or urging of the prosecution. The prosecution has no power to tell the friends what to say or not say. Also, the fact that the friends also talked about the OD would show that their comments were not orchestrated.
Furthermore, her mother has been asking the friends to stop talking.
K. The parents and the prosecution aren’t the same people, however. I’m not saying they have the power to tell anyone what to do, I’m saying they might find it advantageous to suggest what the friends could say to help the girl’s case. They’d probably want to help their friend out, after all.
Maybe I’m wrong. But one way or the other, there’s a lot of stuff flying around that might not all be totally on the level.
That’s what a trial is all about, though, saying why the other side’s witnesses aren’t believeable, and why yours are. If she’s delusional, or is a pathological liar, etc., you should be able to impeach their testimony as not being credible.
**
True, but they don’t always do it only to gain custody. They do it purely out of spite and malice, too. Also, I would add the random rational woman has little to gain from a false rape accusation, but not everyone is rational. A few women have made rape accusations to gain revenge on a lover who has jilted them, get attention, get sympathy, etc. The fact that no rational person would do such a thing makes it harder to understand when an irrational person does it, just like it’s hard to understand why someone with Munchausen’s syndrome would harm their own children to get sympathy and attention.
I thought this was imposed by the prosecutor?