It’s thinking like this that led to the rape shield laws being enacted in the first place. The accuser’s sexual past is rarely relevant to the instant case- and when it is , the questions are allowed. The fact that the accuser may have said “yes” week, last month or last year tells you nothing about whether the accuser consented on this occasion.
I never hear this line of thinking in reference to other crimes- no one ever says " the accuser frequently gave money or lent her car to people , so of course the defendant couldn’t have stolen it". Only with sex crimes do you hear people essentially say that only a virgin can be raped, or take the position that the accuser was looking for it.
But even when the constitution was written, despite the right to confront one’s accusers, there were already established exceptions to the hearsay rule, which continued to be permitted. This was never an absolute rule, even before the constitution was “bastardized by lawyers and judges…”
Does your last sentence mean that a prostitute shouldn’t be able to allege rape? Because that’s what it used to mean in effect.
More like, if a girl has a history of crying wolf or indulging in gang bangs with footballers then that information has a bearing on working out what really happened.
In the UK we have had a spate of cases where guys have been accused of rape on pretty flimsy grounds.
Currently in the UK, there seems little downside for a lass alleging that someone has raped her.
What makes the prosecution of these 3 “false”, exactly? Did the “victim” admit her complaint was false?
The only time a prosecution for rape can be “wrongful” or “false” is where a “victim” admits to having concocted the allegation - in other words, virtually never. Regardless of whether the defendants are acquitted and despite how weak the case may seem on the evidence, the prosecution of a rape can not be wrongful unless it is known as a fact that there was no rape. The only way that can become a known fact is when all concerned admit it. Until then, there is always a prospect that the facts alleged by the complainant are true such that the prosecution of the case can not be said to be wrongful/false.
Cite for those geneal reports? The Duke administration commissioned a report on the lacrosse team in the wake of the rape accusations which found its behavior to be absolutely typical of the student body at large. If you have no cites, please stop spreading rumors and lies.
What are you talking about? What racial abuse? Please cite or stop spreading rumors and lies.
I know very little about the Duke case in particular, so I’ll just have to answer the OP from a larger picture, and while I don’t know if we need MORE prosecution, I do agree that there should be some. (I don’t know if we need more, because I don’t know how much there currently is.)
Rape is, I think, a far worse charge than just about anything besides pedophilia or kiddie porn in our current culture. Even if not guilty in the real sense (as opposed to “not guilty” in the legal sense), simply the *charge *of rape can ruin a person professionally, socially, in marriage and family and self worth. I don’t believe the same is as true as a false charge of theft, or insider trading or even assault. I’m not even sure an eventually dismissed or acquitted murder charge is worse socially and emotionally.
In addition, false rape accusations put real rape victims at a disadvantage. The “cry wolf” scenario is wider than an individual, especially when victim’s identities are shielded - any woman found to falsely charge rape weakens the image of other, true victims. The Duke case, simply because it’s so well known, has planted yet another seed of doubt in the garden of malcontents where “she said no but meant yes” and “she was wearing a short skirt” and “what was she expecting in that neighborhood/bar/hotel room at 3 in the morning?” grow and spread.
While I worry that charging and trying false accusations may indeed prevent some timid women from pressing true charges, I also worry about those people whose lives are ruined from false accusations and from true victims not being believed because other people have lied.
How about hearsay? The admission of hearsay evidence is, by definition, a denial of the right to confront one’s accuser, and it was permissble before, during, and immediately after the Constitution was written, and practiced by some of the same men that wrote and voted to approve the Constitution.
You could not be much more wrong. If a trial proceeds when evidence is deliberately withheld from the defense that they are by law entitled to have, and that evidence is exculpatory, then the prosecution can be wrongful. The continued insistence of the victim that she was raped is not the only possible way that a prosecution can be wrongful. The prosecutor has a duty to proceed in good faith. If he wilfully and maliciously prosecutes when he knows, or should know, that there is no crime or no evidence that would tend to prove a crime as a matter of law, then the prosecution is wrongful.
If the reports of the time about racist shouts from the house at passers by have been withdrawn, then I apologize to the Duek team for repeating them. As for the general behavior, I was relying on an article I read at the time, which I admit I don’t have a cite to - Time or Newsweek rings a bell. As for the Duke Admnistration Report, well - the behavior being typical of the student body at large doesn’t mean it was good or bad, does it.
Given my failed memory as to the source of the article I read, and the fact there is no way I can verify the opinions of Duke alumnae I know on the matter, I can’t satisfy your desires here.
First of all it is a RIGHT, that is of utmost importances. Second you are making up a situation. Third it is an important factor when determining someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if she was known to have said ‘yes’ last week, month, year and is totally fair to bring up in one’s defense, especially in a he said she said situation. It does introduce doubt.
No, it means what it means. Anyone can claim rape, and the accused has the right to face the accuser and be tried by a jury of his peers. You know the way the constitution was written.
Get the person who said it on the stand, allowing cross examination, this is the system the founding fathers set up, and what rape shield laws have destroyed.
Unfortunately this is the ultimate injustice that the rape shield laws have brought us.
So what you’re saying is that if I wish to rape someone, the system should ensure that I pick a promiscuous victim, as to give me the greatest chance of being acquitted? I know enough of your opinions to suspect a very unpleasant motivation.
So you shoot someone, and they survive long enough to tell the police it was you, but not long enough to testify. Oh dear, no evidence.
Do you deny there were exceptions to hearsay before the constitution were written, while it was being written, and persisted after it was written, which would indicate they weren’t considered a problem to those who wrote the document?
The “passersby” were the second dancer and the alleged victim. She called 911 and claimed that she was walking past a house and someone called her a nigger. During the same call, she said she was *driving *past and someone called her a nigger. None of this was true. She was neither walking past nor driving past the house. During the 60 Minutes interview, she admitted that she called the student a “little dick white boy,” with the express purpose of inciting just such a response. Thanks for the apology.
As to the “general reports” on team behavior, let’s re-visit your claim.
Which is it? Is their behavior representative of the student body at large, or do they get a pass on bad behavior because they are athletes?
The Duke report found that, as with the student body at large, alcohol use is a problem. It also found that the lacrosse players were noted for good academic performance and were very active in community service; more so than the student body at large.
What reports of racial abuse from the evening? The alleged victim? She has given a dozen accounts of what happened. The second dancer? She has refuted the alleged victim’s story, and shown herself to be fast and loose with the facts. Who else is there?
I think you will find that a lot of ignorant crap was spewed about in the days following the lacrosse party. Please take the time to confirm that what you are claiming to be true has an actual basis in fact.
I have absolutely no idea why anyone’s opinion should carry much weight, be they Duke alumnae or not.
I’m not making up any situation. You said that the victim’s sexual history is relevant and almost required. You didn’t say " the accuser’s history of making false allegations is relevant" ( which it probably is ) or “questions which seek to impeach the victim’s credibility” are relevant. (which they are).
They have not destroyed cross-examination- simply limited it to relevant issues , as is the case in the prosecution of every other crime.
Yes. Or not. If exculpatory evidence is withheld, the defendant is either going to be acquitted (if it emerges during the trial) or win his appeal (if it comes out afterwards). There may well also be grounds to lodge a professional misconduct complaint against the prosecutor. But it doesn’t necessarily render the entire prosecution wrongful.
??
I know. Did I say otherwise?
Where are you getting your definition of “wrongful prosecution” from?
My point was, as long as I (as prosecutor) have a complainant/victim maintaining she was raped, then my prosecution of the case can not possibly be “wrongful” in the sense of being malicious or brought in bad faith; at worst, I might have a weak case if the victim is a hopeless witness and/or there’s a lot of other evidence suggesting innocence.
The system doesn’t ensure you will pick a promiscuous victim - who you pick to rape is up to you. But if you are a careful criminal, it would seem better, if it’s going to come down to a he said she said situation, to pick a victim with low credibility, such as one who has made false rape accusations in the past, or as least one that is known to be very promiscuous, rather then one who is in a committed relationship with another person, or one who is openly homosexual and it would be very unlikely that they would consent to opposite gender sex.
You may want to believe these things don’t matter, but they do. Remember that we are entitled by a jury of our peers, who are allowed, but unfortunately discouraged, from using their own minds making decisions.
Remember presumed innocent till proven guilty, and rights should not be taken away to help get convictions.
You have failed to demonstrate what relevance one’s sexual history has on an accuser’s credibility. Having a high number of sex partners or liking “freaky” things in bed does not a) preclude one from being raped or b) automatically make someone less trustworthy. And being a virgin doesn’t automatically bestow someone with a halo of credibility. If you want to assert that it does, then I’d like you to explain how you reach this conclusion.
Yes, it would be good to remember this as well as take note that the defendant is not the only one covered under this principle.
Consensual sex is not a crime. Rape is. So I have no idea why you’d think non-criminal behavior would have any relevance in determining whether a criminal act was committed. It would be like asking an accuser in a felony theft trial how many times they have left their car unlocked at night. Whether they’ve never left their car unlocked or they always leave their car unlock, that has no bearing on whether the accused actually stole the car and it says zilch about how much confidence should be given to the accuser’s claim.
This is just not correct. It is very hard to show wrongful prosecution, but simply having an alleged victim does not protect a prosecutor in all situations. If a person claims to have been raped, and accuses a particular man, then the prosecutor discovers that not only does medical evidence show the “victim” has never had sex, but that the “victim” was in a different continent when she claimed the attack occurred, and the “perpetrator” was in prison for a different offense that night… Well, I think there, however much the “victim” maintains the crime occured, you would have a pretty good case of wrongful prosecution. You would also have a pretty good case for a charge against the person who filed the wrongful police report too.