Kobe Bryant

[Doug69]

> Would you be so kind as to explain what

>that relevance is for those of us who don't quite see the

>"patent obviousness" and are less sophisticated in these

>matters than you?

 

It is self-evident that if a woman who claims "rape" has lived for 35 years and refrained from having sexual relations with anyone because she wants to wait until she's married before having sex, that is a relevant fact in determining whether to beleive the defendant's claim that he had sex with her consensually. Conversely, if a woman has been fucked by 10,000 guys and randomly spreads her legs for most anyone who comes along, and the defendant's defense is that the "victim" approached him and wanted to be fucked, her prior sexual history of extreme promiscuity would be relevant to any rational decision-maker in determining who to believe.

 

Before you drool with righteous indignation over the fact that even promiscuous women have the right not to be raped, please note that nobody suggests that prior sexual history is dispositive of a rape claim, only that it is relevant..

 

Since I just answered your question in another post, I'll just repeat what I said here:

 

Claiming that prior sexual conduct is totally irrelevant in assessing a claim of rape requires complete intellectual dishonesty. If you were trying to figure out whether a claim of rape was true or not, are you actually prepared to say that it wouldn't matter to you at all -- not one whit -- if the alleged "victim" were Mother Theresa as opposed to a porn actress who has fucked thousands of guys both on and off camera. That fact would make no difference to you at all?

 

>Well obviously, you are a politically

>savvy person, so please help me out with some examples of how

>"feminist groups" have done so and who these scoundrels are?

 

I'm not going to spend my day proving to people that the world is round. Feminists are quite

 

If you read VaHawk's post - which you complimented - you will see that he is defending "rape shield" laws based upon feminist ideology. He is, in fact, accusing those who oppose such laws of drowning in "hypermasculinist bullshit." The genesis of "rape shield" laws lies in the feminists' advocacy of such laws on the ground that women who were sexually promiscuous were unfairly assumed to have "wanted it," and therefore evidence of their prior sexual conduct ought to be censored from the trial.

 

If you want research to demonstrate this fact, get it yourself. It's not hard, even for you. Just go to feminists' groups webistes and I have no doubt that many of them proudly tout their role in the enactment of such laws.

[axebahia]

>Claiming that prior sexual conduct is totally irrelevant in

>assessing a claim of rape requires complete intellectual

>dishonesty. If you were trying to figure out whether a claim

>of rape was true or not, are you actually prepared to say that

>it wouldn't matter to you at all -- not one whit -- if the

>alleged "victim" were Mother Theresa as opposed to a porn

>actress who has fucked thousands of guys both on and off

>camera. That fact would make no difference to you at all?

 

That's why the legal threshold is whether such evidence is more probitive than prejudicial. I think what we are seeing is that the rape shield law drew the line too far in the direction of prejudicial than probitive. In Canada, the Supreme Court - which seems to have had much press and praise recently - has reset the balance by striking down parts of the rape shield law as unconstitutional for precisely the reasons you suggest.

[woodlawn]

>>One thing I must say is that it's mighty odd to see anyone

>who

>>hires a lot of escorts suggesting that a promiscuous sexual

>>history is evidence that bears on the complainant's

>>credibility. For anyone who thinks it is, I'd ask whether

>>your promiscuous lifestyle makes you less than credible.

 

 

>This makes no sense, because you have manipulated everyone's

>point in order to make yours.

 

Thanks for adding some more meaningless gobbledegook to this thread. We clearly didn't have enough.

 

 

>Nobody is saying that a woman's prior sexual history bears

>generally on her credibility,

 

I suspect your command of English is good enough to allow you to read Unicorn's statement in Post #9 that whether the victim is a whore or a cloistered nun bears directly on her credibility. A sentence like that leaves little room for doubt about its meaning.

 

>This prior sexual

>conduct could, however, be quite relevant -- relevant, that

>is, not dispositive -- in assessing the credibility of her

>claim that sex which she claims she had was nonconsensual.

 

 

I see no connection between the fact that a woman has been promiscuous and the question whether she consented to intercourse on a particular occasion. No matter what her sexual history, every woman has the right to say "No" and to be taken at her word, even though she may never, ever have said "No" to anyone in the past. To admit that a jury can consider her past affairs on the issue of consent in the present case is INEVITABLY to erode that right.

 

>If, however, the

>person were charged with soliciting a prostitute, and

>the person denied it, it would certainly be relevant to most

>people to know that the person in question has hired 10,000

>escorts previously.

 

I don't know what qualifications you have to speak for "most people." I'd agree that outside a courtroom people are free to assume and often do assume that what someone has done in the past he will continue to do. But inside a courtroom the law strives to eliminate anything that could influence the jury other than evidence of what the defendant actually did on the occasion in question.

 

>Clearly, most rational people would think

 

When "most rational people" elect you as their spokesman, be sure to let us know. That would certainly be worth a headline. In the meantime let's be clear that you are expressing your opinion and no one else's.

 

>If you were trying to figure out whether a claim

>of rape was true or not, are you actually prepared to say that

>it wouldn't matter to you at all -- not one whit -- if the

>alleged "victim" were Mother Theresa as opposed to a porn

>actress who has fucked thousands of guys both on and off

>camera. That fact would make no difference to you at all?

 

None at all. What you are saying is that if a woman is promiscuous then she has an additional burden of proof to bear in a rape case that a woman without such a history does not have to bear. That certainly contradicts the fundamental principle of equal protection of law. And it sends a message to all women that if they want the protection of the legal system in the event of a sexual assault they had better be "good" and make sure their sexual practices are not such as to offend their fellow citizens. Are you okay with that? I'm not. I think every woman should have the right to say "No."

[woodlawn]

>One of the problems with "date rape" cases is that the

>possible sentence to the defendant often seems to be wildly

>disproportionate to the injury. In the Kobe case, for

>instance, the alleged victim sustained some minor bruising and

>perhaps some psychological damage-or not-, but if found

>guilty, Kobe's life may be ruined.

 

 

The above two sentences trivialize the crime of rape about as thoroughly as anything I've ever heard on the subject. Spend some time talking to a therapist who has counseled rape victims and maybe you will be able to get back in touch with reality.

 

 

>It is said that the

>potential sentence could be life in prison. Logically, it

>would seem that evidence of the victim's prior sexual history

>should be admitted on the question of sentence at some point

>in the trial or sentencing. Obviously the psychological damage

>to a young virgin could be expected to be more severe than

>that to a sexually experience woman.

 

That seems just as obvious as the old wives' tales that ulcers are caused by stress and colds are caused by going outdoors in chilly weather without a coat. But all three happen to be wrong.

 

 

>But even the consent or lack thereof is often a

>subjective matter. She may say no, but the in actuality, warm

>to it and consent with her actions if not her words.

 

There's nothing "subjective" going on when you hear someone say "No." You either hear it or you don't. If you have any doubt about its meaning there's a very simple solution -- stop what you're doing and ask. I can think of only one reason why you would be unwilling to ask, and that is that you don't want to hear the answer.

 

 

>A simple

>solution to the problem would seem to be that few date rape

>cases can logically meet the standard of "proof beyond a

>reasonable doubt"--which the Supreme Court has said is a due

>process requirement under the Constitution. No case of "she

>says, he says" can meet that standard,

 

 

I hate to state the obvious, but that is what juries exist for -- to listen to the testimony of witnesses and decide which ones are telling the truth and which are not. And there's also a reason why a jury consists of a group of people and why unanimous verdicts are required for conviction -- if all the jurors don't reach the same conclusion about the credibility of the witnesses, or if any of them feels he or she can't come to such a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant goes free.

[Guest Merlin]

I think you miss the point, woodlawn, a case of "she says, he says" which depends entirely upon credibilty can never satisfy the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". There will always be a substantial question of doubt. It is no answer to say leave it up to the jury. The purpose of proof beyond a reasonable doubt lies in the philosophy that it is better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent one go free. Cases with no more that "she says, he says" should not be prosecuted and judges should not allow them to go beyond the preliminary hearing, since such evidence cannot amount amount to probable cause.

Your comment that the man must not go beyond the "no" and rely upon actions for consent, again overlooks the vast disparity between harm and punishment. No one should lose his life by imprisonment because he relied upon consent by action.

The feminists have sold the legislatures a bill of extreme political correctness, and alas, low proof of date rape has become a liberal dogma.

[Guest]

>I'm not sure what part of Unicorn's post is the "correct"

>part. The general rule is that the defendant's prior

>convictions do NOT come in unless one of the exceptions you

>listed applies, which rarely happens.

 

The fact that a history of rape convictions in a defendant on a rape case is relevant is so obvious that I cannot believe anyone would have to gall to argue otherwise. Of course, a history of rape convictions is totally insufficient evidence to prove a rape case. And a prior history of, say, embezzlement or forgery would be of very little relevance in a rape case (although a history of multiple felonies could indicate the defendant was a sociopath). Nevertheless, only someone who was comletely insane and psychotic would truly believe that a history of rape had no bearing on a rape case!!! The fact that a history of prior rape convictions might not be admissible in a rape trial only provides further evidence as to how our legal system totally abandons the seeking of truth as a goal as opposed to the seeking of $$$ and political expediency!!

 

>The reasoning behind the rape shield law and the exclusion of

>the defendant's prior convictions is more or less the same.

 

You can say that again! The only "reasoning" I can think of is that this results in more $$$ going into the legal system in general, and the lawyers' pockets in particular.

 

>The object of the trial is to get the jury to decide what

>happened in the case that is before them. We don't want them

>to convict the defendant on this charge simply because he was

>convicted on another charge in the past, nor do we want the

>defendant to be acquitted simply because the complainant slept

>with a lot of men in the past and the jury thinks that such a

>"loose woman" shouldn't be allowed to cry rape.

 

No one's saying that! That's ridiculous. Yet the fact that you believe that a jury might base their decision "simply because" of a litigant's prior behavior only indicates that you believe that juries are too stupid to understand the concept of convicting someone only when a case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously, a litigant's prior behavior does not in an of itself prove anything.

 

>One thing I must say is that it's mighty odd to see anyone who

>hires a lot of escorts suggesting that a promiscuous sexual

>history is evidence that bears on the complainant's

>credibility. For anyone who thinks it is, I'd ask whether

>your promiscuous lifestyle makes you less than credible.

>

Obviously, promiscuity doesn't imply a lack of credibility in general. However, as an example, if it came out that the hotel employee who accused Kobe Bryant is well-known to go to the hotel room and service any big-dicked hotel guest, but then suddenly screams rape when someone famous fucks her, well that's certainly relevant information. No one can deny that it is. It absolutely, certainly is, and anyone who says it isn't is either lying or comletely deluded. It doesn't mean Kobe didn't rape her, but if the issue ends up coming down to her credibility versus his (as opposed to more hard evidence such as marks left by rope or handcuffs on her wrists, and bruises from a gag rag on her lips), then this information becomes of increasing importance.

As another example, the fact that I've hired a number of escorts would have little if any relevance in, say, an arson case. However, if I were arrested for soliciting prostitution, and I cried "Entrapment! I would never do such a thing!" then evidence that I have hired escorts in the past would certainly be relevant!! This is so obvious, I would hardly believe anyone would argue the point.

[Guest]

>

 

>a prior rather than independantly evaluate the evidence in the

>case they are trying. Most jurisdictions don't allow prior

 

Please, Flower, tell me this is a typo. Otherwise, you've been reading too many postings by escorts. I think there's some special escort school where they're all taught to misspell "independent." There's one other word that escorts all misspell, especially when they write their own reviews, but I'm forgetting which one it is.... :+

[woodlawn]

>I think you miss the point, woodlawn, a case of "she says, he

>says" which depends entirely upon credibilty can never satisfy

>the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

I didn't miss that point, I simply think it's bullshit. The thousands and thousands of jurors who have voted to convict in such cases obviously don't agree with it, the thousands and thousands of judges who presided over those trials don't agree with it, and neither do I. Clear?

 

 

>Your comment that the man must not go beyond the "no" and rely

>upon actions for consent, again overlooks the vast disparity

>between harm and punishment. No one should lose his life by

>imprisonment because he relied upon consent by action.

 

But you don't address the point that it is so very, very easy to avoid that situation simply by asking the person who says "No" what she means. Again, what reason could anyone have for refusing to do that -- other than that he doesn't want to hear the answer?

[woodlawn]

>The fact that a history of rape convictions in a defendant on

>a rape case is relevant is so obvious that I cannot believe

>anyone would have to gall to argue otherwise.

 

You will have to get used to believing it because that happens to be the law in every state. Any other rule would violate the principle that each case must be adjudicated on its own merits and that every defendant is equal before the law.

 

 

>Nevertheless, only

>someone who was comletely insane and psychotic would truly

>believe that a history of rape had no bearing on a rape

>case!!!

 

Someone should explain to you that saying anyone who disagrees with you is insane is not a very persuasive argument.

 

 

>You can say that again! The only "reasoning" I can think of

>is that this results in more $$$ going into the legal system

>in general, and the lawyers' pockets in particular.

 

Bullshit. How exactly does the exclusion of prior convictions enrich lawyers? Prosecutors and judges don't get paid by the hour. And defense lawyers who do get paid by the hour could bill more hours, not fewer, if they had the additional problem of prior convictions to deal with.

 

>>nor do we want the

>>defendant to be acquitted simply because the complainant

>slept

>>with a lot of men in the past and the jury thinks that such

>a "loose woman" shouldn't be allowed to cry rape.

 

>No one's saying that! That's ridiculous. Yet the fact that

>you believe that a jury might base their decision "simply

>because" of a litigant's prior behavior only indicates that

>you believe that juries are too stupid to understand

 

You really don't know what you're talking about. The rape shield laws were passed precisely because so many people observed firsthand the prejudicial effect of the kind of evidence you want admitted. That juries can be prejudiced by such evidence is not a theory, but a fact that's been attested to by scholars and practitioners again and again. You seem not to realize that legislatures passed these laws only after many hours of hearings in which experts testified to their experiences with this problem. Don't you know anything about how legislatures work?

 

>Obviously, a litigant's prior

>behavior does not in an of itself prove anything.

 

Then why admit it at all? You keep insisting it's relevant, but you never explain why.

 

>Obviously, promiscuity doesn't imply a lack of credibility in

>general. However, as an example, if it came out that the

>hotel employee who accused Kobe Bryant is well-known to go to

>the hotel room and service any big-dicked hotel guest, but

>then suddenly screams rape when someone famous fucks her, well

>that's certainly relevant information. No one can deny

>that it is. It absolutely, certainly is, and anyone who says

>it isn't is either lying or comletely deluded.

 

Once again, you inform us that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have something terribly wrong with him. Have you ever actually persuaded anyone of anything by saying that?

 

 

> It doesn't

>mean Kobe didn't rape her,

 

Exactly. So if it doesn't tell us what actually happened at the time in question, why admit it?

 

>However, if I were arrested for soliciting

>prostitution, and I cried "Entrapment! I would never do such

>a thing!" then evidence that I have hired escorts in the past

>would certainly be relevant!! This is so obvious, I would

>hardly believe anyone would argue the point.

 

You don't understand the difference between the two situations. If your defense is entrapment, you are saying that you DID commit the act in question but that you did so only because you were pressured or compelled to do so by a police officer. Your prior actions would be relevant NOT on the issue of whether you committed the act but ONLY on the issue of whether you are the sort of person who would hire an escort without being pressured to do so by a cop. Got it?

 

If, on the other hand, your defense is that you DID NOT solicit at all, how does the fact that you solicited in the past prove that you did so on this occasion?

[Doug69]

>>Nobody is saying that a woman's prior sexual history bears

>>generally on her credibility,

>

>I suspect your command of English is good enough to allow you

>to read Unicorn's statement in Post #9 that whether the victim

>is a whore or a cloistered nun bears directly on her

>credibility. A sentence like that leaves little room for

>doubt about its meaning.

 

It was painfully clear to everyone (except you) that when Unicorn said that a woman's promiscuous past was relevant to her credibility, he was talking about her credibility with regard to the specifc rape charge and the claim of non-consent, and he was not claiming that promiscuity generally lowers a person's credibility on unrelated issues.

 

I was going to suggest that Unicorn make this clear, but he already did so. Nobody here has suggested that promiscuity generally lowers a person's credibility - only that it is relevant to whether or not consent really occurred.

 

If someone on this Board were charged with soliciting a prostitute, and he denied it, would it be relevant in trying to determine the truth to know that the person has hired 10,000 escorts previously and participates in discussions of escorts on this Board?

 

>I see no connection between the fact that a woman has been

>promiscuous and the question whether she consented to

>intercourse on a particular occasion.

 

Many people do see a connection. Why don't you trust the jury to make this decision - or trust the Judge to determine what evidence should be admitted.

 

With regard to most other evidentiary matters, the judicial system vests with the Judge the power to determine whether the "probative value of evidence outweighs its prejudical impact." Why should the rules be any different with regard to rape trials? Why not just allow the judge to make that threshold determination and then, if it's admitted, allow the jurors to decide how much weight should be given to it? Why do you want different rules for this type of evidence than is applied to evidence generally?

 

No matter what her

>sexual history, every woman has the right to say "No" and to

>be taken at her word, even though she may never, ever have

>said "No" to anyone in the past.

 

Do you acknowledge that some women consent to sex and then claim afterwards to have been raped (whether out of shame or remorse or a desire for vengence)? The question is not whether a promiscuous woman has the right to say "no" - of course she does. The question in many trials (include the Kobe Bryant case) is whether she really said no at all or whether she's lying. Clearly, it's more likely that a woman who is a nun or a resolute virgin said "no" than it is for a women with 10,000 fucks in her past.

 

Given that these cases almost always boil down to a he said/she said choice - and given that direct evidence of what actually occurred in the specific case is often non-existent -- inferences and circumstantial evidence are imperative in deciding who is right.

 

Where there are no witnesses and a woman claims non-consent and the defendant claims consent, how is a juror supposed to decide who to believe other than by examining circumstantial evidence such as the woman's past sexual condcut?

[woodlawn]

>It was painfully clear to everyone (except you) that when

>Unicorn said that a woman's promiscuous past was relevant to

>her credibility, he was talking about her credibility with

>regard to the specifc rape charge

 

I see that you've been elected the spokesman for "everyone" now. That's a much larger group than "most rational people." Congratulations on your promotion.

 

>If someone on this Board were charged with soliciting a

>prostitute, and he denied it, would it be relevant in trying

>to determine the truth to know that the person has hired

>10,000 escorts previously and participates in discussions of

>escorts on this Board?

 

Why would it be?

 

>>I see no connection between the fact that a woman has been

>>promiscuous and the question whether she consented to

>>intercourse on a particular occasion.

 

>Many people do see a connection.

 

And many don't. If that were not so the laws you are complaining about would not have been passed. And yet you never seem to acknowledge that. How odd!

 

 

>Why don't you trust the jury

>to make this decision - or trust the Judge to determine what

>evidence should be admitted.

 

As I pointed out to Unicorn, rape shield laws were passed because many jurists testified to legislative committees that they had observed the prejudicial effect of such evidence. Legislators decided the problem was serious enough to justify a blanket prohibition. Why don't you trust their judgment?

 

 

>With regard to most other evidentiary matters, the judicial

>system vests with the Judge the power to determine whether the

>"probative value of evidence outweighs its prejudical impact."

> Why should the rules be any different with regard to rape

>trials?

 

See above.

 

>No matter what her

>>sexual history, every woman has the right to say "No" and to

>>be taken at her word, even though she may never, ever have

>>said "No" to anyone in the past.

 

>Clearly, it's more likely that a

>woman who is a nun or a resolute virgin said "no" than it is

>for a women with 10,000 fucks in her past.

 

Why is that more likely?

 

 

>Where there are no witnesses and a woman claims non-consent

>and the defendant claims consent, how is a juror supposed to

>decide who to believe other than by examining circumstantial

>evidence such as the woman's past sexual condcut?

 

How is a juror EVER supposed to make a decision when two witnesses contradict each other? As I pointed out above, a man was put to death in Texas a couple of years ago in a case in which one witness insisted she saw him at the murder scene and he insisted he was not there. Jurors have to deal with this problem every single day. That's what juries are for.

 

And past sexual history is not "circumstantial evidence" of something that happened on a completely different occasion. Only evidence showing what happened on the occasion in question can be circumstantial evidence.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Given that these cases almost always boil down to a he

>said/she said choice - and given that direct evidence of what

>actually occurred in the specific case is often non-existent

>-- inferences and circumstantial evidence are imperative in

>deciding who is right.

 

On a related note, does anyone know whether the rape shield law will have any bearing on the introduction of evidence about the alleged victim's mental health? I'm referring to the stories in the media about her alleged recent suicide attempt and related rumors. Would that kind of thing be up to the judge's discretion or does the law say it can't be introduced?

[Doug69]

>>If someone on this Board were charged with soliciting a

>>prostitute, and he denied it, would it be relevant in trying

>>to determine the truth to know that the person has hired

>>10,000 escorts previously and participates in discussions of

>>escorts on this Board?

>

>Why would it be?

 

For a very simple reason: without dispositve (i.e. "smoking gun") evidence, a juror can only deal in probabilities, i.e., is it probable that someone is telling the truth.

 

It is unquestionably more probable that a person solicited a prostitute if he has 10,000 escort hires in his (recent) past and participates on this Board than it is that a person who never previously solicited an escort did so.

 

One has demonstrated, with his past conduct, a strong propoensity to hire prostitutes. The other one has not.

 

Are you really prepared to say that such strong evidence of this propensity is not relevant in determinig whether the charge of prostitution solicitation is valid? Well?

 

>And many don't. If that were not so the laws you are

>complaining about would not have been passed. And yet you

>never seem to acknowledge that. How odd!

 

I know that some people think that this evidence is relevant and some don't. That's true for all evidence that is admitted at trial. Some jurors give great weight to it and others give it little or no weight. That's how the jury system works - the jury decides what weight to give to evidence.

 

Why should that rule suddenly change just because it's rape we're talking about, rather than some less politically charged crime?

 

>As I pointed out to Unicorn, rape shield laws were passed

>because many jurists testified to legislative committees that

>they had observed the prejudicial effect of such evidence.

>Legislators decided the problem was serious enough to justify

>a blanket prohibition. Why don't you trust their judgment?

 

Why don't I trust the judgment of elected politicians?? HAHAHAHAH. Are you really asking this seriously!?!?! Good one!

 

The reason I don't trust their judgment is perfectly ilustrated by this case. Politicians are whores. They do what money and influence tell them to do. Feminist groups and other politically groups were shrieking loudly about these laws because they promote the feminist notion that men are vicious rapists, women are victims, and the "system" is unfair to women. The politicians caved in and changed the rules of evidence for this one crime because of its political impact.

 

I don't think that political considerations ought to decide whether someone goes to jail for 50 years. I think a jury should decide that only after it hears all relevant evidence. If a woman is claiming that she didn't consent and the defendant is claiming she did, the jury should know whether the woman is a whore or a nun.

[woodlawn]

>For a very simple reason: without dispositve (i.e. "smoking

>gun") evidence, a juror can only deal in probabilities, i.e.,

>is it probable that someone is telling the truth.

 

Your argument assumes that when Kobe and his accuser testify, the jurors aren't convinced that one of them is telling the truth and the other isn't. THAT would be dispositive evidence. Why do you make that assumption? Earlier you asked me if I think jurors are too stupid to give past sexual history its proper weight. Do you think they're too stupid to figure out which witness is lying? Apparently you do.

 

>Are you really prepared to say that such strong evidence of

>this propensity is not relevant in determinig whether the

>charge of prostitution solicitation is valid? Well?

 

You ask the wrong question. The question is not whether the evidence is relevant but whether it is more prejudicial than probative. I say it is.

 

In the case of rape, I'd say logic dictates the opposite of the argument you're trying to make. It seems to me far less likely that someone who loves having sex and has had a whole lot of it and doesn't take it very seriously would make a false charge of rape than someone who has never had sex and is quite possibly terrified of it. So shouldn't the jury consider that the promiscuous complainant is more likely to be telling the truth than the virginal one?

 

>I know that some people think that this evidence is relevant

>and some don't. That's true for all evidence that is

>admitted at trial. Some jurors give great weight to it and

>others give it little or no weight. That's how the jury

>system works - the jury decides what weight to give to

>evidence.

>

>Why should that rule suddenly change just because it's rape

>we're talking about, rather than some less politically charged

>crime?

 

You are ignoring the fact that there are plenty of blanket rules that take such decisions out of the hands of juries. Why have a general rule against hearsay evidence? Why not simply admit it and trust the jury to weigh it appropriately? Why have a blanket rule excluding coerced confessions? Let the jury hear the confession and decide. There are states (such as Florida) that have statutory rules severely limiting the types of past criminal convictions that can be introduced to impeach a criminal defendant's testimony. Again, why not simply let any convictions in and let the jury decide what weight to give them?

 

 

>Why don't I trust the judgment of elected politicians??

>HAHAHAHAH. Are you really asking this seriously!?!?! Good

>one!

 

>The reason I don't trust their judgment is perfectly

>ilustrated by this case. Politicians are whores.

 

And how does that change the fact that they did hold hearings and that many experts did testify that in their experience this sort of evidence is more prejudicial than probative? If there are valid reasons for the policy then what difference does it make why the politicians actually supported it?

[Guest]

>

>Someone should explain to you that saying anyone who disagrees

>with you is insane is not a very persuasive argument.

>

I wasn't trying to persuade you. One cannot argue rationally with someone who abandons all logic.

>

 

>Bullshit. How exactly does the exclusion of prior convictions

>enrich lawyers? Prosecutors and judges don't get paid by the

>hour. And defense lawyers who do get paid by the hour could

>bill more hours, not fewer, if they had the additional problem

>of prior convictions to deal with.

 

It's pretty obvious. Because the most relevant information gets excluded (i.e. prior convictions for the same offense), the defense lawyer can convince the defendant he might win at trial, instead of copping a plea. Although prosecutors and judges don't exactly get paid more if a case goes to trial as opposed to settled, having a backlog of cases certainly provides job security.

>

 

>>Obviously, a litigant's prior

>>behavior does not in an of itself prove anything.

>

>Then why admit it at all? You keep insisting it's relevant,

>but you never explain why.

>

Again, the point is so obvious that one wouldn't have to explain it to normal people, but I'll take you at your word that you simply can't understand how a fact can be relevant without in and of itself proving anything (you really are serious, aren't you?). Let's say a doctor sees a patient in the office, and the patient requests Valium or Xanax for anxiety attacks. The patient's chart indicates a prior history of cocaine use. The doctor also notes that the patient's pulse is 140. The doctor asks the patient to submit a urine sample for drug testing. The patient refuses (we'll call this the medical equivalent of invoking the 5th Ammendment). The doctor might, at this point, even order other tests (EKG, blood tests) to rule out other causes. Well, obviously none of the individual facts, in and of themselves, prove that the patient is high on cocaine. The fact that a person did cocaine in the past doesn't mean he's doing it now. A person can have a rapid pulse for other reasons. Maybe he doesn't want to leave a drug screen because he's doing other drugs. But if you put all the facts together and connect the dots, I would say it's at least 98% certain this guy is doing cocaine (or another stimulant drug).

I would also venture to say that if the doctor does prescribe Valium, and the patient uses it in order be able to take more cocaine, and ends up with a stroke, that the doctor might be found liable for negligence. And, as an aside to this story, I think that the standard jury instruction that a defendant's invoking of the 5th Ammendment shouldn't be held against him is almost as ludicrous as not allowing evidence of prior similar behavior at trial. I doubt that any juror with at least three neurons follows that instruction.

 

 

 

>If, on the other hand, your defense is that you DID NOT

>solicit at all, how does the fact that you solicited in the

>past prove that you did so on this occasion?

>

OK. Let's leave the entrapment out of it. The point, which I think is fairly obvious, is that facts can be relevant without proving anything by themselves. I think that if my defense is that I did not solicit at all, then prior convictions for solicitation would certainly be relevant, particularly if it's "my word against the cop's." Of course, if there's a videotape of me asking a cop if he'll take it up the ass if I pay him $200, then there shouldn't be a trial at all. In this case, one pleads "no contest" (or takes a plea bargain if there is one).

[woodlawn]

>I wasn't trying to persuade you. One cannot argue rationally

>with someone who abandons all logic.

 

I guess that explains why you resorted to childish insults instead of arguments. Typical.

 

 

>It's pretty obvious. Because the most relevant information

>gets excluded (i.e. prior convictions for the same offense),

>the defense lawyer can convince the defendant he might win at

>trial, instead of copping a plea.

 

It's obvious only to someone as ignorant of this subject as you are. The vast majority of criminal defendants can't afford to pay for a trial. And even if they could, they know even less about the rules of evidence than you do. You're an educated man and you didn't even know one of the most basic rules, that prior bad acts are generally inadmissible. They know so little that they'd believe just about anything a lawyer tells them. To persuade them to agree to a trial, even if they could afford one, it is hardly necessary to rig the rules of evidence. Stop embarrassing yourself by talking about a subject of which you know nothing.

 

 

>>>Obviously, a litigant's prior

>>>behavior does not in an of itself prove anything.

 

>>Then why admit it at all? You keep insisting it's relevant,

>>but you never explain why.

>>

>Again, the point is so obvious that one wouldn't have to

>explain it to normal people, but I'll take you at your word

>that you simply can't understand how a fact can be relevant

>without in and of itself proving anything (you really are

>serious, aren't you?). Let's say a doctor sees a patient in

 

You could have saved yourself typing a long and not very interesting story by making the same point in these few words: what people have done in the past is a good indication of what they will do in the future. As I've already explained, one of the most basic rules of evidence in criminal proceedings is that juries should NOT decide the issue of guilt or innocence on that basis. You think you're the first person ever to consider this issue? Entire generations of jurists have already considered and rejected your argument.

 

 

>I doubt that any juror with at

>least three neurons follows that instruction.

 

 

If you think it's okay for jurors to ignore their oath, I hope for the sake of the parties to the case that you are never selected to serve on a jury. You are exactly the sort of person NEITHER side wants. Do your community a favor. If you ever get a jury summons, tell them you're sick.

 

>OK. Let's leave the entrapment out of it.

 

Good idea, since you clearly have no idea what that word means.

[woodlawn]

>I think that if my defense is

>that I did not solicit at all, then prior convictions for

>solicitation would certainly be relevant, particularly if it's

>"my word against the cop's."

 

Yeah, you know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of a case in the mid-90s in which two LAPD officers shot a gang member. They were arresting him for dealing and he pulled a gun on them, so they shot him. That was their testimony. The defendant lived -- though he was a paraplaegic due to the gunshot wound -- and his story was that the officers had tried to rip him off for drugs and shot him when he protested, even though he had no weapon. But he was a gang member with drug priors so no one believed him. Besides being paralyzed he got a long stretch for dealing and attempted murder.

 

But you know what? A couple of years later the officers who arrested him became two of the central figures in the Ramparts scandal. When they were busted for ripping off other dealers one of them admitted that the defendant I just told you about had been telling the truth, while they had been lying. Long story short, the defendant had his conviction overturned and got a multi-million dollar settlement from the city. Still paralyzed, though. Just goes to show you what can happen when you rely on the principle that people's past records are useful in figuring out which of them is telling the truth. Hey, were you one of the jurors who voted to convict that defendant? If you had been on that jury you probably would have.

[Flower]

We'll interrupt this post for tattling on misspelled wo...

 

>

>Please, Flower, tell me this is a typo.

 

ooooPS Yep, a typo--however, as I said somewhere in another post, I'm a lousy speller -- I try and run all posts and everything else I write thru a spell checker, but maybe IT has picked up my bad habit :+

[Guest]

>As I've already explained,

>one of the most basic rules of evidence in criminal

>proceedings is that juries should NOT decide the issue of

>guilt or innocence on that basis. You think you're the first

>person ever to consider this issue? Entire generations of

>jurists have already considered and rejected your argument.

 

In other words, you're not going to try to defend your position. I tell you the rule is dumb, and you just say "Well, that's the rule." You're just saying "That's how the U.S. legal system works, so it must be right." It's a completely tautological, provincial (as if current U.S. practices are universal), and anti-intellectual. Can't you think for yourself?

 

>>I doubt that any juror with at

>>least three neurons follows that instruction.

>

>

>If you think it's okay for jurors to ignore their oath, I hope

>for the sake of the parties to the case that you are never

>selected to serve on a jury.

 

I didn't say it was OK for jurors to ignore their oath, although I believe that if the lay jury system has ANY value, it's in the ability of lay people to say to the judicial branch "Fuck your rules. We're not part of the system, we'll vote with common sense." I just said that I doubt most jurors do follow their oath, either because they have enough common sense, are too smart, or are too stupid. However, for the record, I think it's more important that jurors be fair than that they follow their oath.

 

 

>You are exactly the sort of

>person NEITHER side wants. Do your community a favor. If you

>ever get a jury summons, tell them you're sick.

 

Well, you finally got one right!! :7 :7 You're right that neither side wants me on the jury (particularly whichever side is wrong). You can say that a million times! There's no need to tell them I'm sick. (That's a pretty dumb suggestion, anyways--they'd just call you back another day). When I'm called I always tell the judge exactly what I think of the U.S. legal system in general, and the jury system as it's practiced these days in particular. The judge has always excused me from service. Of course, if any judge is stupid enough to put me on a jury anyways, I'll be happy to sit in the box, collect my full salary at work, and vote against the majority when the time comes. The whole system is a joke anyways, with lawyers pulling all kinds of shenanigans, trying to prevent the truth from coming out. It'll be a cold day in hell before I dance like a puppet on a jury for a bunch of crooked lawyers (for God's sake--those lawyers don't even pay the jurors!). I think the system promotes injustice, the judge is not my boss, and the judicial system is not paying my salary. Why should I take an oath and be the lawyers' stooges? And don't give me this crap about civic duty. When the judicial branch runs an honest ship, I'll be happy to participate. As long as they feed me this "Well, this is the way it is because this is the way it is, and the American Trial Lawyers Association likes it this way" crap like you're giving me, I'll politely tell the members of our judicial system to go fuck themselves.

[woodlawn]

>In other words, you're not going to try to defend your

>position. I tell you the rule is dumb,

 

"The rule is dumb." That sure is a convincing argument. I can understand why you're surprised that so many people disagree with you.

 

>Can't you think for

>yourself?

 

So when you went to med school you didn't bother to read Gray's, right? Since you prefer to think for yourself, your knowledge of human anatomy is based entirely on your own independent studies rather than texts written by others, right? Bullshit. Throughout your education and your career you've read the theories and ideas of other people and then made your own decision about whether you agree with them. And now you disparage me for doing the exact same thing.

 

On the issue of admitting priors, generations of jurists have considered every argument you've made and a number of others you haven't thought of. Unlike you, many of them have actual experience in criminal trials and firsthand knowledge of the prejudicial effect of such evidence. I agree with them.

 

>I didn't say it was OK for jurors to ignore their oath,

 

>However, for the

>record, I think it's more important that jurors be fair than

>that they follow their oath.

 

You didn't say that? Well, I guess I must have read your mind.

 

>The whole system is a joke

>anyways, with lawyers pulling all kinds of shenanigans, trying

>to prevent the truth from coming out.

 

Yes, it's shocking how dishonest lawyers are, isn't it? And since you've always been completely honest with everyone about everything, including your involvement with prostitution, you are certainly in a good position to criticize others for dishonesty.

 

 

>When

>the judicial branch runs an honest ship, I'll be happy to

>participate.

 

 

Here's that honesty issue again. By the way, about that immigration case you're involved in -- you've informed INS that your young protege was working in an illegal business, right? Of course you did. An honest fellow like you? Who could doubt it?

[axebahia]

>On the issue of admitting priors, generations of jurists have

>considered every argument you've made and a number of others

>you haven't thought of. Unlike you, many of them have actual

>experience in criminal trials and firsthand knowledge of the

>prejudicial effect of such evidence. I agree with them.

 

Once again, you tend to overstate the state of the law. The "rape shield" law has a comparatively recent provenance in the Anglo-American common law (to say nothing of the Civil Law drawn on the Napoleonic Codes), and as I pointed out has been dramatically cut back by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[woodlawn]

>Once again, you tend to overstate the state of the law. The

>"rape shield" law has a comparatively recent provenance

 

 

Once again, you fail to read the posts to which you are replying. Had you done so, you would know that the discussion has gone beyond the rape shield law to encompass the general rule of inadmissibility of prior bad acts, a rule with many years of history behind it.

[Guest]

>"The rule is dumb." That sure is a convincing argument. I

>can understand why you're surprised that so many people

>disagree with you.

 

Are you hearing voices or something? You're the only one disagreeing with me. "The rule is dumb" was also not my argument. I made that one in a prior post. You, however, have not brought forth any argument. Saying you think you're right because that's the way it is does not constitute an argument. However, when you confessed that you couldn't understand how a piece of information can be relevant without in and of itself proving anything--well, that was one of the most stupid statements I've ever read. I may disagree with the positions of a lot of the postings I read. I don't always agree with Flower, for example. But he's never written anything downright stupid. I can respectfully disagree with him.

 

 

>So when you went to med school you didn't bother to read

>Gray's, right? Since you prefer to think for yourself, your

>knowledge of human anatomy is based entirely on your own

>independent studies rather than texts written by others,

>right? Bullshit. Throughout your education and your career

>you've read the theories and ideas of other people and then

>made your own decision about whether you agree with them.

 

First of all, I don't think any medical school has used Gray's Anatomy in years (ours certainly didn't). Secondly, medicine grows in the complete opposite way from the legal system. Medicine constantly seeks to add facts and knowledge. By your own admission, the U.S. legal system's way of determining the "truth" is by withholding relevant facts and information. In fact, you think that a fact can be so important that it should be withheld lest it overshadow other facts. Your defense of current rules of evidence consists of simply repeating over and over that these rules are legal tradition developed through the ages. Medical practices, on the other hand, constantly change as new knowledge and ideas come to light (estrogen being a good recent example).

 

 

>Yes, it's shocking how dishonest lawyers are, isn't it? And

>since you've always been completely honest with everyone about

>everything, including your involvement with prostitution, you

>are certainly in a good position to criticize others for

>dishonesty.

>

When have I ever denied my involvement with prostitution? Or are you just being stupid again?

>

 

>Here's that honesty issue again. By the way, about that

>immigration case you're involved in -- you've informed INS

>that your young protege was working in an illegal business,

>right? Of course you did. An honest fellow like you? Who

>could doubt it?

>

Here you go again--bringing up irrelevant, nonsensical statements that have nothing to do with what you're supposed to be arguing about. First of all, it's not the INS, Mr. Legal Expert, but the BCIS (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services). Second, I'm not a party to my partner's immigration case, and no one from BCIS has asked for or cares about my opinion. Third of all, the fact that my partner was so desperate to avoid persecution in his home country that he went to extreme measures so that he wouldn't have to go back supports, rather than shows inconsistency with his claim. He happens to come from a well to do, loving family, and was doing well in the university. I greatly admire my partner's courage and dedication in his attempt to seek freedom from persecution in this country. He could hardly speak the language when he first came (although he now speaks it quite well).

[VaHawk]

I just don't understand how anyone could be against any law that encourages women to come forward and testify against a rapist without fear of being castigated as deserving it because of her past sexual history. I believe the law was instituted because of the vicious attack that women suffered at the hands of the defense attorneys, and since they would not testify, it let rapists repeat the offense over and over (this is what I meant by a serial rapist, I never meant that he was a convicted rapist and his past had a bearing).

 

Of course it is common sense that there is a difference between a violent attack and rape by a stranger and what is called "date rape".

But I really don't comprehend, regardless of the situation, how anyone could possibly justify the violation of one person by another person.

 

Really guys, it does not matter whether the victim is a nun, a saint or a prostitute, rape is an act of violence, and I can not imagine a more vile act against one's person, than rape. The main flaw I see in these posts is that everyone is looking at rape as a sexual act rather than an act of violence, subjugation and control. I don't care how much the other party has led you on, has got you stoked, etc. NOTHING GIVES YOU THE RIGHT to proceed against the other party's will.

 

It really is a crock of bullshit that anyone should try to justify that violence and deny that it is an INDIVIDUAL act of violence just because of the "alledged victim's" prior sexual history. Nothing is under trial here but this specific accusation, and nothing should be considered in this case but the facts of this case, regardless of the accuser's or defendent's prior history, criminal or otherwise.

 

Regardless of the rape shield law, how could anyone possibly say that a prostitute who is raped suffers less pyschological trauma than a virgin? RAPE IS ABOUT VIOLENCE NOT SEX!!!

 

All of the posters spouting this bs have probably never been a victim of violence. If you want to know what it feels like ask anyone who has been a victim. Ask them how angry she/he feels. Ask her/him how much they want to strike back. Ask her/him how much they question their own actions and worthiness as a human being. I can't imagine anything more devastating than having someone violate you sexually.

 

The total disrespect toward women that I have seen in the majority of the postings on this thread is DISGUSTING!!!! It is this very attitude by males that led to the rape shield law in the first place. DUH!! Control your cock, don't let it control you!

 

And you know what dudes, men are victims of rape also. How would you feel if you said no to your date, he ignored you and forcibly penetrated you, but because of your promiscuity as a gay man, your accusations were dismissed? After all, based on your sexual history you are a cock loving slut just asking for it, right?

 

Anyone excusing rape, under any circumstance, should hang his head in shame.

[Doug69]

>I just don't understand how anyone could be against any law

>that encourages women to come forward and testify against a

>rapist without fear of being castigated as deserving it

>because of her past sexual history.

 

Do you understand - or care - that the mere fact that a woman accuses a man of rape doesn't mean that rape actually occurred?

 

Do you recognize that sometimes, a woman has sex with a man consensually but then claims that she was raped due to any number of factors: shame, a desire for vengence, a desire for fame, mental instability, etc.

 

It's fucking amazing how whenever you talk about this issue, you act as if there's only one party to be concerned about: the woman who claims she's a victim.

 

There's another party involved, too: the defendant, who is accused of a crime which may send him to prison forever and which will destroy his life if it's proven.

 

Don't you think he has a right to present to the jury which will determine his fate all evidence which bears on the issue of whether or not the woman with whom he had sex really did or didn't consent?

 

Nobody is advancing the premise - so I don't understand why you keep attacking it - that a woman who has a promiscuous sexual history doesn't have the right to say no. All women have that right and should, and anyone who forces a woman to have sex against her will is a rapist and should go to prison.

 

But that isn't the point. The point is that when a defendant is charged with rape by a woman, it is often the case that the accusation is a lie. That's why we have jury trials - to find out the truth. And for a man who is falsely accused of rape by a consenting woman, it is the height of sickness and injustice to prevent him from trying to show that the woman consented by showing the jury that she is the type of person who casually and frequently consents to such sex. It doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but it is certainly relevant to figuring out what happened.

 

Do you not give a fuck for the men who are rotting in jail because they were falsely accused of rape by a woman who actually consented?