Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
Well as bad as it may have been then you don't think harm has come to the entire proccess because of the at times, over-protective nature of the laws? Or maybe their intrepetations there of?
|
No. I approve of those changes wholeheartedly.
Rape kit evidence is state's evidence to be used in the state's prosecution of the criminal. Charging the victim for that is ethically reprehensible, implicates the possible violation of a few Constitutional provisions (even the 'takings' clause) and is counterproductive to the enforcement of rape laws.
Rape shield laws prevented the miscarriage of justice in numerous valid rape cases with wrongful acquittals, improved the ethics and fairness of court practice, and provides fairness to victims.
As for any intentionally filed false charges, plenty of laws exist to punish such people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
I think its gone too far the other way now, i didn't remember it back in the 90's and was indeed too young but surely what we have now isn't what the law's drafters intended be the outcome of their passage?
|
These kinds of laws above achieved their intended effect without any remarkable, if any, negative setbacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
Also, a lot of the time, even to this day a lot of the past sex life info and "she's a gold-digger" are still used by the defense aren't they anyway? All the shield laws do it make the lawyers work harder to do their own research i presume and not have the local paper just brandish the girl a slut and kill the case on arrival? Or have i mis-interpreted what you meant?
|
No, that kind of evidence does not come in anymore. You don't even dream of it actually because it would cause mistrials and judges sanctioning you, etc.
Lawyers for the defence must now actually stay focused on the case evidence at issue itself. Simply trying to smear the woman as a slut due to her prior and collateral sexual experiences is mostly if not often completely a red herring trick, e.g., if a woman slept with someone else consensually in another unrelated event, it doesn't mean she must have consented to have sex with the defendant. It sought to trigger improper prejudice in judges and juries to get desired results. It was also an improper tactic for intimidating witnesses to not testify to get the desired results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
Just to edit in, i absolutely agree that this idiot in this case deserves a stiff jail term for sure like you said. I just think that half the way these laws are writte and or interpreted allows for folks like her (and the Duke stripper) to think they can get away with this sort of thing.
|
If the stripper in the Duke lacrosse case violated criminal statutes and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, she should be prosecuted and slammed. Knowingly and intentionally filing false rape charges is extremely serious given the kinds of life ruining sentences the victims can receive if wrongfully convicted on top of the loss of reputation, jobs, spent attorneys' fees and bail, and other negative consequences that can happen to the victims of the false accusation.