It seems pretty clear that disputes over values, lifestyles and the question of what is the biggest ‘cultural threat’ now dominate public life. The political vocabulary that served Western societies pretty well during the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century has become exhausted, and it has been displaced by the idiom of culture.
Even disputes that were once discussed through the rhetoric of class, social injustice or ideology now only come alive when they are communicated through the grammar of culture.
Leftists attack the ‘old boy culture’ of the posh, Oxford-based Bullingdon Club or the ‘culture of cronyism’ of Etonians, while those on the right criticise the ‘culture of entitlement’ or ‘dependency culture’ of the less well off.
Hostility to the police is frequently expressed through a denunciation of their ‘canteen culture’.
What is crazy is some loon thinking that Cosby didn’t rape anyone when he clearly admitted he gave a person drugs to knock her out so he could have sex with them. That’s not consent, that’s RAPE. The fact that this pathetic Rape culture can’t even name it makes it oh so convenient for rape apologists to weasel their way out of the truth and point to no indictment as equating innocence. Now that’s ludicrous and morally dishonest. A Rape Weasel.
And once again you’re conflating legal jargon with truth. I don’t care if he’s a “convicted rapist” in the eyes of the law or not. He admitted to Rape and apologists want to say he didn’t. Continuing to pander to this guy is rape culture.
If the critical element in a prosecution’s case is based on the legitimacy of the accuser, then character concerns, including past behavior, are eminently relevant.
This of course reflects the fact that juries are comprised of people. People judge your character based (in part) on your past behavior. Allowing only side to address character concerns is unjust.
And there’s a third side: In its 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, the CDC reported 620,000 female victims of “completed forced penetration” in the last 12 months, or 0.5%. [Page 18, Table 2.1] In the next table, it said 1,267,000 men were “made to penetrate,” or 1.1%. [Page 19, table 2.2.] So it’s possible women are sometimes perpetrators of sexual assault, and men are sometimes victims.
The district court also properly concluded that the Rule 403 balancing test applies to evidence submitted under Rule 413. This conclusion is a legal determination that we review de novo. … Rule 403 allows a district court to exclude evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” or other enumerated considerations, including confusion of the issues or undue delay. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Rule 403 applies to all evidence admitted in federal court, except in those rare instances when other rules make an exception to it.
The thread is so bogged down in meaningless arguments over semantics and/or nothing (and you’ve misrepresented this stat on this board in the recent past, and and been corrected on it), such that it isn’t at all clear what you’re arguing against here, but it’s not “possible;” it’s an obvious objective fact that women are sometimes perpetrators of sexual assault, and that men are sometimes victims.
True. But you need to look at the whole case, and the point I was making (rape is different):
In other words, in most cases, prior bad acts of the defendant are not admissible to prove he committed this particular crime - he crime he’s on trial for. The reasoning is that admission of extraneous bad acts are so prejudicial that a jury might convict someone for the prior bad acts, rather than on the facts in the case he’s being tried for.
But under 413 - sexual assault cases - those same acts are admissible:
In other words, you’re right. In this case, this court found that extraneous bad acts were properly excluded. The court, however, explicitly said that in other cases, with different facts, 413 evidence - which only applies to sexual assault cases - would be admissible.
Rape is different: Congress has made a rule, for example, that makes it easier for prosecutors to get convictions in sexual assault cases - a rule that only applies to sexual assault cases. And sexual assault is already a particularly hard charge to defend against.
The Innocence Project doesn’t break its cases down by type of allegation. But if you look at the first page - Exonerated by DNA - you’ll find that all of them were charged with sexual assault.
And…? What is your point now? How is that different from what I said?
Court discretion to exclude evidence and use Rule 403 applies to every case. FRE 413 does not compel the prior acts to be admissible. The court weighs it for each individual case, depending on the facts of that specific case.
Why do you need to go over things again and again?