You’re absolutely right, as many people innocent of rape have discovered to their chagrin. There’s a stigma associated with people accused of rape, and being acquitted doesn’t make it go away. Often people simply assume that the prosecution screwed up the case and that’s why they got off.
For that reason, if it can be demonstrated in any way that the accusation was false the accuser should be prosecuted as vigorously as possible. Even if they are acquitted they will get a taste of what it is to be ruined by an accusation.
I think they can also testify to the negative effects of simply being accused of a crime. Obviously being falsely accused of rape is one of the worst things that can happen to a man, but it pales in comparison to what could happen to a women. Imagine the pain of being raped, having the rapist go unpunished, and on top of that being tossed in the slammer and having all of your assets seized.
But I was saying the team wasn’t prosecuted, some members were. The team got a lot of bad publicity, some deserved, some not. The wrongful prosecution (if it was that, which seems probable) was against individuals, not an entity called the Duke Lacrosse team.
Due to the charges, the lacrosse season was cancelled. Some Duke students felt that was too lenient. I should certainly think that the entire team was damaged by the accusation.
And where did I say anything contrary to that? The adverse publicity sucked. It had bad consequences. I am not denying that at all. But the team wasn’t wrongfully prosecuted, only three individuals (potentially) were.
Well, you’ve carved a nice fine point of it there. Let me see if I can slice off a bit more. **Bricker **did not say that entire team was prosecuted. He said that the team can testify to the effects of prosecution. Do you really believe that the other members are unaware of what has been done to their team mates?
For starters, if she tells a dozen diferent versions of the story, and witnesses refute her story, and all forensic evidence does not support her story, and there is a video of her pole dancing the day after she went to the hospital claiming to be in excruciating pain as a result of the rape, maybe you charge her and see where the chips fall.
To the OP, yes, those who falsely accuse others of rape should be punished. I was watching a TV show yesterday which reported on a woman who falsely accused a police officer of fondling her breasts during a traffic stop. Her only problem was that the video camera in the patrol car showed that she never got out of her car, and that officer never touched her. She was pissed at the cop for stopping her, and tried to get back at him. She went to jail.
Three of them were actually prosecuted. The rest are also able to testify as to the effects of wrongful prosecution for at least two reasons: they are well-aware of the negative effects being suffered by their three unlucky teammates, and they were in no small amount of danger themselves, given Nifong’s photo-ID technique in which he used Duke lacrosse team pictures, and ONLY Duke lacrosse team pictures, to the victim. Shockingly, the victim identified three Duke lacrosse team players as the ones she was going to accuse.
So, yes - the entire team, having a front-row seat at the train wreck of a false prosecution, and having arguably been in some immediate danger themselves of being charged, can in fact testify as to the injurious effects thereof.
But the rape shield laws I was referring to prevents the accused from asking questions about the alleged victim’s sexual history, including former false rape accusations.
In general, the term “rape shield laws” refers to the laws in most every jurisdiction that make the accuser’s prior sexual history inadmissible as a matter of law. They evolved to prevent the defense tactic of suggesting to the jury that because the prosecutrix was promiscuous, she was likely to have consented in the instant case, or that even if she didn’t consent, she was promiscuous and deserved what she got.
They are generally constitutional - cites available on request - primarily because they generally do permit the victim’s sexual history to come out if the defense can show particularized relevance of the specific piece of history to the crime at issue.
For example, if the prosecution’s theory of the crime is that the jury should infer rape because of the victim’s physical injuries and the fact that the accused was the only one who could have caused such injuries, the defense is entitled to ask if there is anyone else that could have caused such injuries. That means anyone else the victim had sex with around the time the alleged rape occured, not two weeks prior or two weeks subsequent.
In an effort to balance the victim’s privacy with the need to present a complete defense, a judge may order that the questions be asked first of the victim outside the presence of the jury, or in a sealed courtroom. If the victim’s answers do not support the defense’s theory, the defense is forbidden from even asking them in public. If the answers DO permit an alternate inference that would be favorable to the defense, then the question may be asked again in front of the jury.
That’s fair. The distinction I was trying to draw (and not well) was between the individualized effects on those actually prosecuted, and the effects upon the team, which were caused by the publicity surrounding the incident. But you are absolutely right - the other team members were impacted in ways I didn’t consider.
From what I hear, the overall behavior of the team both on this night and in general was of a pretty low standard. It’s a shame that it takes a (presumably) false accusation of rape for their to be any consequences for certain athletes actions.
I believe you’re reaching a conclusion that I personally agree with, but I cannot agree that there should be legal consequences for the behavior in question. I think it is of low standards to hire strippers to perform for you and your friends, and to suugest that one use a broom handle as a sex device. But that behavior is not illegal, and I suspect there are many on these very boards that would defend not only the rights of consenting adults to enter into a business arrangement to do these things, but also vehemently reject the idea that it represents “low” behavior for either the paid perfomers or their paying audiences.
So hat, specifically, do you mean when you say the behavior of the team was “low?” What sort of consequences should innure to those that hire strippers and ask them to perform for them at private parties? And is the fact that they are athletes relevant to the analysis at all?
Which is my contention that it is unconstitutional, that decision is not for a judge to make, but the jury, and puts the defendant at a distinct disadvantage.
I also agree there should be no legal consequences - and the consequences for the team weren’t legal ones. It isn’t the hiring of a stripper as such, though I have seen that cause major harm to a student organization. It is more the general reports regarding the behavior of the team members on an ongoing basis. It matters they are athletes to the extent that in some instances athletes get passes that others don’t, and because of the culture of obnoxiousness that surrounds some athletic (and other) elements. There is also the reported incidents of racial abuse from that evening.
Are these legal problems (other than the underage drinking)? Probably not. And they should not be met with legal consequences. I won’t weep for social and university sanctions placed on an athletic team that the university feels poorly represents that institution’s name.
The defense must have some foundational basis to ask the question. If not the defendant’s admission, then they must be able to proffer some other basis for asking the question.
And while you may contend that it is unconstitutional, I am not aware of any court that agrees with you as a general matter. These laws have been challenged in every jurisidiction, and while they may have been found to have been applied unconstitutionally to a particular set of facts at a given trial, they are not per se constitutionally flawed.
Which was made to be and is understandable to the common man, and bastardized by lawyers and judges to the point that it no longer means what it directly says. Putting restrictions on the right to face one’s accuser is clearly a violation. This is not the only place where the real meaning of the Constitution has been changed, but it is one that can destroy a innocent person’s life.
Evidence of the accusers sexual past is relevant and almost required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt IMHO.