P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Speaking of stirring the pot...
A recent thread has resulted a few comments about the Kobe Bryant trial, and claims that the treatment of his accuser helps to show the lack of justice provided to rape victims.
To these eyes, it's pretty clear that the accuser received some despicable treatment -- being outed by the defense despite the gag order was a tactic designed expressly to humiliate and intimidate her. I'm sickened by that particular tactic. And I'm sure this isn't the sole violation of her dignity.
However, it is also commonly claimed that the defense's successful introduction of the accuser's sexual and mental history (in particular, her behavior immediately following the alleged assault) serves to prevent her from getting justice.
The last time I checked, however, the accused have a right to a fair trial, and evidence that may cast doubts as the veracity of the charges placed against the accused should be admissable.
When a woman accuses a man of rape, her sexual history is usually not relevant -- liking sex, even having tons of casual sex, doesn't mean that a woman does not have a right to say "no".
However, if someone is potentially accusing someone of a heinous crime to gain attention, and that attention-getting behavior is part of a pattern in the accuser's past -- or if that person engaged in activities that make evidence used to support the charges questionable -- shouldn't that information enter into the trial?
Thoughts?
A recent thread has resulted a few comments about the Kobe Bryant trial, and claims that the treatment of his accuser helps to show the lack of justice provided to rape victims.
To these eyes, it's pretty clear that the accuser received some despicable treatment -- being outed by the defense despite the gag order was a tactic designed expressly to humiliate and intimidate her. I'm sickened by that particular tactic. And I'm sure this isn't the sole violation of her dignity.
However, it is also commonly claimed that the defense's successful introduction of the accuser's sexual and mental history (in particular, her behavior immediately following the alleged assault) serves to prevent her from getting justice.
The last time I checked, however, the accused have a right to a fair trial, and evidence that may cast doubts as the veracity of the charges placed against the accused should be admissable.
When a woman accuses a man of rape, her sexual history is usually not relevant -- liking sex, even having tons of casual sex, doesn't mean that a woman does not have a right to say "no".
However, if someone is potentially accusing someone of a heinous crime to gain attention, and that attention-getting behavior is part of a pattern in the accuser's past -- or if that person engaged in activities that make evidence used to support the charges questionable -- shouldn't that information enter into the trial?
Thoughts?
