NationStates Jolt Archive

For some reason I was thinking for a second about the Kobe Bryant trial(famous basketball player involved in a rape case)

I was wondering what peoples opinions of rape shield laws are.

Rape shield laws are things that protect an accusers privacy. e.g., a woman accusing someone of rape cannot have her past sexual or mental or any history brought up. The only things the jury can consider is if they believe the accuser or the accused is more credible and any available forensic evidence / wtness tesimony ect. Logic being that less people wll come forward if they knw that their pasts are going to be made public for scrutiny/stigma ect.

I will create a poll if I can figue it out.

My beliefs.

I think that instances of rape where the accusation / evidence leads to a " forcible" rape type situation(by this I mean along the lines of a guy physically grabbing a girl and throwing her down and raping her), rape shield laws should most definately apply. Meaning that the accusers past history is completly IRRELEVANT. Whoever/ whatever she is was or will be has no bearing on what happened.

In the case of "date" rape or a "he said / she said" situation, then the jury should be allowed to hear details of both the accused and the accusers histories. Currently, most of the time, only the accused's history is allowed to be presented.

This could be dangerous. A man could be accuesed of something he didn't do and not know who is acusing him. Thats dangerous because it could be a woman who hates X particular man doing it out of malace.

And what happens when the accuser has a history of mental illness? Quite frankly, if a schizophrenic accused someone of rape and there is no evidence, I'd be more inclined to believe the accusee.

I think personal histories should be looked at by the investigators and only presented as evidence against or for the accuser if it is valid, as in cases of mental illness, past relationships with the accusee and other circumstances I don't have the imagination to come up with.

This could be dangerous. A man could be accuesed of something he didn't do and not know who is acusing him. Thats dangerous because it could be a woman who hates X particular man doing it out of malace.

The accused would always know the accuser, thats not the problem. The problem is that the jury in charge of convicting or acquiting him would be denied potentially pertinent information about the accuser.

Personally, I think if two people are alone in a room and one person is accused of rape, I would think it makes a differance if the accuser routinely uses his/her body for money or was delivering dinner. Thats not to say a hooker/gigalo cant be raped, but I would want to be able to weigh whether there is a monetary/or other goal behind the accusation.

It's a tricky issue. You have to remember that rape shield laws were passed originally because many victims were frightened to come forward because they feared that their past history - however innocent - would be twisted and they would be branded as sluts by their community.

I think it should always apply, If the Jury makes their decision based on the womans past it may not be the right decision, if the jury makes their decision based on the story and all the evidence it will probably be the right decision.

I think it should always apply, If the Jury makes their decision based on the womans past it may not be the right decision, if the jury makes their decision based on the story and all the evidence it will probably be the right decision.

What about the woman's (assuming the accuser is a woman) character? Character and history of the accuser applies to other cases and other situations, so why not here too?

I'm not saying that it should apply in every case, not even most cases. But there are too many ways that someone can twist the story in their favor to get someone they don't like to go to jail, even if they didn't do a thing.

It's a tricky issue. You have to remember that rape shield laws were passed originally because many victims were frightened to come forward because they feared that their past history - however innocent - would be twisted and they would be branded as sluts by their community.

Yeah, I know the logic behind them and for the most part I agree.

But in the US at least, the stigma for sex has gone down and the monetary rewards have gone up. Not to invite lotsa flames, but motivation is a factor the price for accusing vs the rewards)

Just cause a girl claimed she said no or a guy claimed she said yes is not enough info for me to judge another. A scumbag date rapist can be innocent and a mormon virgin can be guilty, given the right circumstances and incentives.

How can I judge when I have no info other than the accused and accusers words?

The past is irrelevant. either way. What matters is objective evidence.

All that does is "poison the well" and that is not logical at all.