Kobe Bryant

[woodlawn]

>Are you hearing voices or something? You're the only one

>disagreeing with me.

 

Are you out of your fucking mind? You must be if you think the whole world consists of this message board. The people who disagree with you are the thousands upon thousands of legislator, jurors, judges, practitioners and scholars who have supported the rule we're discussing. Remember them? I've heard of people who are self-absorbed, but you set a whole new standard in that regard.

 

 

"The rule is dumb" was also not my

>argument. I made that one in a prior post.

 

So that somehow does not count? You really are weird.

 

 

You, however,

>have not brought forth any argument.

 

Please don't lie. I've explained why this rule is the law enough times that even you should be able to get it by now.

 

>Saying you think you're

>right because that's the way it is does not constitute an

>argument.

 

Another lie.

 

>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.

 

No, you're just too stupid to understand that terms like "relevant" have a different meaning when discussing the rules of evidence, a subject of which you know absolutely nothing, than in other contexts. Stick to talking about what you know. If there is such a subject.

 

 

>First of all, I don't think any medical school has used Gray's

>Anatomy in years (ours certainly didn't).

 

I checked with a friend who graduated from Stanford last year. They certainly do. He still has his copy.

 

>By your

>own admission, the U.S. legal system's way of determining the

>"truth" is by withholding relevant facts and

>information.

 

You're lying once again. The legal system seeks to avoid decisions based on prejudice rather than facts. When the time comes that you get busted for soliciting a prostitute you will be very, very grateful for that.

 

 

>Your defense of current rules of evidence consists of

>simply repeating over and over that these rules are legal

>tradition developed through the ages.

 

You are lying. You refuse to acknowledge the reasons I've actually posted because you have no way of responding to them.

 

 

>Medical practices, on

>the other hand, constantly change as new knowledge and ideas

>come to light (estrogen being a good recent example).

 

Yes, hormone therapy is a great example. I was just reading that women have been warned to stop using it because of the risk of cancer. What a terrific breakthrough. Congratulations.

 

>When have I ever denied my involvement with prostitution? Or

>are you just being stupid again?

 

Someone who descends to childish name-calling the moment anyone disagrees with him, as you invariably do, is in no position to accuse anyone else of being "stupid."

 

>Here you go again--bringing up irrelevant, nonsensical

>statements that have nothing to do with what you're supposed

>to be arguing about.

 

You are the one who is complaining about the dishonesty of the legal profession. You chose to bring it up. Not me. Don't think I don't appreciate the humor of a lecture on honesty from someone who was considering adopting an illegal alien whom he has previously hired as a hooker so that he could stay in this country. That is very, very humorous.

 

>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.

 

But aiding and assisting an illegal alien who has committed crimes in this country contrasts rather oddly with your decision to get up on a high moral perch and lecture the rest of us about people who try to game the legal system for their own advantage. You're clearly not above playing games with the system when there's something YOU want at stake. But of course it's different when other people do it, right?

[woodlawn]

>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?

 

No. Under our system he doesn't have a right to present all evidence that could have a bearing on the issue. He has a right to present evidence that is more probative than prejudicial. Just as, under our system, the woman has no right to present to the jury evidence of the defendant's prior criminal history, if there is one, except in a very limited number of exceptional situations. Both accuser and defendant have to live with certain restrictions on the evidence each can present about the other. I don't know why you keep pretending that the restrictions are on one side only.

 

 

>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.

 

Wait a minute. What is the basis for your statement that the accusation is "often" a lie? Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just making shit up?

 

> That's why we have jury trials - to find

>out the truth.

 

That's another problem with your position. You seem to think a jury can be trusted to choose between conflicting witnesses in a murder case, but not in a rape case. How can that possibly make sense?

 

>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?

 

Just who are all these men? Your statement implies that you know of many such cases. Okay, tell us about some of them.

[Doug69]

>No. Under our system he doesn't have a right to present all

>evidence that could have a bearing on the issue. He has a

>right to present evidence that is more probative than

>prejudicial.

 

Exactly - and I keep asking you why you think that a different standard should apply to a woman's promiscuous sexual choices in a rape case, and you won't give a responseive answer. WHY NOT JUST ALLOW THIS EVIDENCE TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS MOST OTHER EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL by allowing the judge to decide if its probative value outweighs its prejudical impact?

 

Just as, under our system, the woman has no

>right to present to the jury evidence of the defendant's prior

>criminal history, if there is one, except in a very limited

>number of exceptional situations. Both accuser and defendant

>have to live with certain restrictions on the evidence each

>can present about the other. I don't know why you keep

>pretending that the restrictions are on one side only.

 

You make my point perfectly. Evidence of prior convictions are admissible if, for instance, such acts constitute proof of a plan, intent, modus operandi, etc. In other words, a rape defendant can have prior convictions admitted if they show a propensity to commit rapes similar to the one at issue in the trial.

 

Why should the alleged victim be treated differently - i.e., why shouldn't it be admissible to show her prior acts which constitute proof of the fact that she readily, frequently and easily consents to sex with many different men?

 

>Wait a minute. What is the basis for your statement that the

>accusation is "often" a lie? Do you have anything to back

>that up, or are you just making shit up?

 

If you have doubts that men in this country are wrongfully accused of rape, then you have serious intellectual or mental problems which explain a lot about your views.

 

I really didn't think it was necessary to post proof that men are often falsely accused, and sometimes falsely convicted, of rape, but apparently, on this Board at least - or at least with you - it is.

 

From a study published by the Psychology Department of the California State University, Northdrige(http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/dtrape_n.htm):

 

<< According to the FBI, one out of every twelve claims of rape in the United States are unfounded due to investigations finding no evidence of the crime or the "victim" recanting. Sometimes women go through the process of reporting a rape because they feel lonely, need attention, or need to feel important.>>

 

There are a lot of other similar studies. It's seriously astounding that you doubted this. It explains a lot, though, since if you think that every woman who yells "rape" is telling the truth, I guess it makes sense that you'd want to prevent the defendant from introudcing evidence to show that he didn't rape anyone.

[woodlawn]

>Exactly - and I keep asking you why you think that a different

>standard should apply to a woman's promiscuous sexual choices

>in a rape case, and you won't give a responseive answer. WHY

>NOT JUST ALLOW THIS EVIDENCE TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS MOST

>OTHER EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL by allowing the judge to

>decide if its probative value outweighs its prejudical

>impact?

 

I have answered this question again and again. You simply want to pretend no one has answered it so that you can keep making the same argument again and again. For the fifth or sixth time, then, legislatures have determined, supported by a substantial body of expert opinion, that this type of evidence -- like other types of evidence such as hearsay and coerced confessions -- is so much more likely to be prejudicial than probative that a general prohibition is warranted. You may not agree with this judgment, but there are lots and lots of people who do.

 

>In other words,

>a rape defendant can have prior convictions admitted if they

>show a propensity to commit rapes similar to the one at issue

>in the trial.

 

But your "other words" greatly understate the standard that must be met to get such evidence in, which very rarely happens.

 

>Why should the alleged victim be treated differently - i.e.,

>why shouldn't it be admissible to show her prior acts which

>constitute proof of the fact that she readily, frequently and

>easily consents to sex with many different men?

 

For the seventh or eighth time, because a substantial body of scholars, judges and practitioners agree, based on real-world experience, that such evidence is vastly more likely to excite the prejudices of the jury than to aid in finding the truth.

 

 

>If you have doubts that men in this country are wrongfully

>accused of rape, then you have serious intellectual or mental

>problems which explain a lot about your views.

 

I have no doubts about your propensity to substitute childish insults like the above for arguments. You do it constantly, and that says a lot about your personality.

 

>I really didn't think it was necessary to post proof that men

>are often falsely accused, and sometimes falsely convicted,

 

I know you didn't. You rarely do think any justification for your claims is necessary.

 

 

><< According to the FBI, one out of every twelve claims of

>rape in the United States are unfounded due to investigations

>finding no evidence of the crime or the "victim"

>recanting.

 

Finally, some actual facts. Okay, let's assume the one of twelve figure is valid and not exaggerated -- which requires us to assume that in EVERY case in which an investigation found no evidence of the crime it is because there was no crime rather than because the investigator screwed up. Let's assume that.

 

That would mean that 8.3 percent of claims of rape are unfounded. Which would mean that more than 91 percent of claims of rape are NOT unfounded. And something that happens in 8.3 cases out of every 100 cases is what you call OFTEN?

 

>There are a lot of other similar studies. It's seriously

>astounding that you doubted this. It explains a lot, though,

>since if you think that every woman who yells "rape" is

>telling the truth, I guess it makes sense that you'd want to

>prevent the defendant from introudcing evidence to show that

>he didn't rape anyone.

 

Well, according to YOUR figures, if a woman yells "Rape" THE ODDS ARE MORE THAN TEN TO ONE THAT SHE IS TELLING THE TRUTH. Frankly, that is as good an argument IN FAVOR of the rape shield law as any I have ever heard. Thanks.

[Doug69]

> For the fifth or

>sixth time, then, legislatures have determined, supported by a

>substantial body of expert opinion, that this type of evidence

>-- like other types of evidence such as hearsay and coerced

>confessions -- is so much more likely to be prejudicial than

>probative that a general prohibition is warranted. You may

>not agree with this judgment, but there are lots and lots of

>people who do.

 

You do not understand the difference between "is" and "ought" - a rather basic distinction for discussing anything.

 

All you are doing is stating that the rule exists and that others have studied it and concluded it's a good rule. This is not a REASON why this rule is a good rule. The question - which you have NEVER answered - is what is so unique about this evidence that it ought to be excluded without enabling the judge to make that determiniation on a case-by-case basis, the way it is done with most other evidence.

 

>>In other words,

>>a rape defendant can have prior convictions admitted if they

>>show a propensity to commit rapes similar to the one at

>issue

>>in the trial.

 

>But your "other words" greatly understate the standard that

>must be met to get such evidence in, which very rarely

>happens.

 

It happens enough that a defendant's prior bad acts are admitted to prove this propensity. Regardless of how often it happens, why not treat the alleged victim's prior acts the same way - if you are right, it means that such acts will be admitted only "rarely" - i.e. only when a judge decided that under the circumstances, it is just to have the jury hear about them.

 

>I have no doubts about your propensity to substitute childish

>insults like the above for arguments. You do it constantly,

>and that says a lot about your personality.

 

If you will check your discussion with Unicorn, in which you answer many of his statements with the very adult and substantive phrase "you are lying," as well as many other discussions you have had where you call people "shit head" and other such elegant epithets, I don't think you're in much of a position to complain about "childish insults" being tossed about. Wouldn't you agree?

 

>><< According to the FBI, one out of every twelve claims of

>>rape in the United States are unfounded due to

>investigations

>>finding no evidence of the crime or the "victim"

>>recanting.

 

>That would mean that 8.3 percent of claims of rape are

>unfounded. Which would mean that more than 91 percent of

>claims of rape are NOT unfounded. And something that happens

>in 8.3 cases out of every 100 cases is what you call OFTEN?

 

What total fucking sophistry!!!! The fact that 1 out of every 12 rape cases is proven to be fabricated doesn't mean that all of the other ones are true. It just means that they were able to prove that 1 out of 12 were false - the rest could not be resolved one way or the other with dispositive evidence.

 

When it comes to tossing my fellow citizens in prison for most or all of their lives, I happen to think that 1 out of every 12 at least rape defendants who are falsely accused is a pretty significant number, and definitely constitutes serious concern about not hamstringing them in order to fend of this rather destructive punishment. It's amazing that you're so cavalier about it.

 

I know that the feminist doctrine that women are weak peaceful all-good victims who need to be protected against violent, lying, vicious male predators is all the rage these days, and it's nice that you've embraced this little trend, but I don't think that it justifies tying the hands of criminal defendants who are accused of committing a crime as serious as rape.

[woodlawn]

>You do not understand the difference between "is" and "ought"

>- a rather basic distinction for discussing anything.

 

More childish insults.

 

>All you are doing is stating that the rule exists and that

>others have studied it and concluded it's a good rule. This

>is not a REASON why this rule is a good rule.

 

But I did state the reason. You just keep pretending I didn't because, as I said, you want to make the same argument over and over. The reason is, for the ninth or tenth time, that observation has convinced many people that this type of evidence is far more likely to inflame the prejudices of the jurors than to aid them in finding the truth. What part of that sentence do you NOT understand?

 

> The question -

>which you have NEVER answered - is what is so unique about

>this evidence

 

I have answered it many times, most recently immediately above. What is so unique about it is its propensity for inflaming the prejudices of jurors. Again, what part of that do you NOT understand?

 

>It happens enough that a defendant's prior bad acts are

>admitted to prove this propensity. Regardless of how often it

>happens,

 

But how often it happens is exactly the point. You tried to argue earlier that the rape shield law and the prior bad acts rule aren't comparable because the latter has exceptions. But, as I pointed out, those exceptions enable admission in very rare cases. So they ARE comparable. Again, is there some part of that you do NOT understand?

 

>If you will check your discussion with Unicorn, in which you

>answer many of his statements with the very adult and

>substantive phrase "you are lying,"

 

This isn't "Crossfire." When people deliberately distort what I've said in the past, I have no hesitation in saying so. As for insults, I use them only in response to personal attacks, not pre-emptively. That's been my rule since I first started posting here. You cannot say the same about yourself.

 

>>That would mean that 8.3 percent of claims of rape are

>>unfounded. Which would mean that more than 91 percent of

>>claims of rape are NOT unfounded. And something that

>happens

>>in 8.3 cases out of every 100 cases is what you call OFTEN?

 

>What total fucking sophistry!!!! The fact that 1 out of

>every 12 rape cases is proven to be fabricated

 

Whoa! The source you quoted didn't say one of twelve is proven to be fabricated. Others may let you get away with making shit up to support your arguments. Not me.

 

>doesn't

>mean that all of the other ones are true.

 

Then what does it mean? If I take the language you quoted literally, I should conclude that a small percentage of accusations were determined to be unfounded due to inability to find any supporting evidence or recanting. So the vast majority of accusations were NOT determined to be unfounded for either reason?

 

 

It just means that

>they were able to prove that 1 out of 12 were false - the rest

>could not be resolved one way or the other with dispositive

>evidence.

 

 

Once again, that is not what the source you quoted said.

 

>When it comes to tossing my fellow citizens in prison for most

>or all of their lives, I happen to think that 1 out of every

>12 at least rape defendants who are falsely accused is

>a pretty significant number,

 

Is it? And of those one in twelve accusations, how many actually resulted in anyone serving any jail time?

 

>but I don't

>think that it justifies tying the hands of criminal defendants

>who are accused of committing a crime as serious as

>rape.

 

What a pity so many seasoned jurists disagree with you. But keep campaigning for your point of view. Perhaps someday you can convince someone.

[woodlawn]

>I know that the feminist doctrine that women are weak peaceful

>all-good victims who need to be protected against violent,

>lying, vicious male predators is all the rage these days, and

>it's nice that you've embraced this little trend, but I don't

>think that it justifies tying the hands of criminal defendants

>who are accused of committing a crime as serious as

>rape.

 

Unlike you, I'm not childish enough to say that anyone who disagrees with me on this issue must have something wrong with his mind. I acknowledge that there are rational arguments against rape shield. I happen to find them weak and unpersuasive, but the fact that someone else reacts to them differently is not necessarily a sign of mental defect in my view.

 

I believe that SOME of the people who oppose rape shield do so because they don't think women should have the same sexual freedom as men. They think that women should be more limited in their sexual choices, and that women who don't abide by such limits are not entitled to complain if a man takes advantage of them sexually. I think it's especially likely that a person holds that opinion when he uses terms like "feminist doctrine" or "feminist agenda," terms similar to the term "homosexual agenda" that Rightists use to make the campaign for gay rights seem like a sinister conspiracy. It's a source of some satisfaction to me that people like that have not prevailed on this issue and seem unlikely to do so.

[Guest]

>The people

>who disagree with you are the thousands upon thousands of

>legislator, jurors, judges, practitioners and scholars who

>have supported the rule we're discussing.

 

What a crock of shit. Since when do jurors, practitioners, and scholars make the rules? I'm sure that if the question as to whether a history of prior rape convictions should be barred from rape trials were to be put up for a national referendum, an overwhelming majority would vote for the convictions to be admissible. I suspect that even those who ostensibly support the rule think it's a stupid idea. It just happens to be a profitable one for the legal profession.

>

 

 

>You are the one who is complaining about the dishonesty of the

>legal profession. You chose to bring it up. Not me. Don't

>think I don't appreciate the humor of a lecture on honesty

>from someone who was considering adopting an illegal alien

>whom he has previously hired as a hooker so that he could stay

>in this country. That is very, very humorous.

>

 

He's not an illegal alien, you nitwit. He's an asylum applicant. The BCIS knows full well exactly where he is. He's fully registered and fingerprinted. He has a letter from them stating that he can legally remain in the country, and, in fact, will soon have authorization from them to find legal employment. If it weren't for the Defense of Marriage Act, he'd have his green card by now.

The fact that you don't understand how a piece of evidence can be relevant in the context of other pieces of evidence is quite dumb, as we've already demonstrated. Equally stupid is your confusion between someone who's dishonest and one who breaks laws. I break laws every day of my life, as do most people, and I don't give a shit. I drive above the speed limit every single day. I've hired probably dozens of escorts. And I've even had gay sex in states in which it was a felony at the time. That's obviously not the same as being dishonest. I've never claimed I rigorously obey all laws, so I'm not being dishonest.

Well, you keep taking this discussion on admissibility of evidence onto stupid tangents about my partner and my history of hiring escorts (which we all know is just horrible!). Since you're obviously not going to bring up any relevant or remotely intelligent discussion, I'll let you have the last word...

[axebahia]

>Are you out of your fucking mind? You must be if you think

>the whole world consists of this message board. The people

>who disagree with you are the thousands upon thousands of

>legislator, jurors, judges, practitioners and scholars who

>have supported the rule we're discussing.

 

Once again, you over-state the case. This is a relatively new rule to the Anglo-American common law to say nothing of civil law jurisdictions, and I note again that the Canadian Supreme Court has struck most of it down.

[axebahia]

>For the fifth or

>sixth time, then, legislatures have determined, supported by a

>substantial body of expert opinion, that this type of evidence

>-- like other types of evidence such as hearsay and coerced

>confessions -- is so much more likely to be prejudicial than

>probative that a general prohibition is warranted. You may

>not agree with this judgment, but there are lots and lots of

>people who do.

 

>For the seventh or eighth time, because a substantial body of

>scholars, judges and practitioners agree, based on real-world

>experience, that such evidence is vastly more likely to excite

>the prejudices of the jury than to aid in finding the truth.

 

These laws were whipped up at a time when feminist legal theory was all the rage in law schools. I am not sure that anything written by Catherine McKinnon would pass the U.S. Supreme Court's "Daubert" test for expert evidence vs.unk science today. Again, I repeat the Canadian Supreme Court has re-examined the issue and redrawn the line between the probitive and prejudicial aspects of the rape shield law. Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court has occasion to do the same real soon. Show trials like the Mike Tyson affair do not do much for the credibility of our legal system. In that case you will recall Tyson was not permitted in Indiana to lead evidence that his accuser was the village trampoline, or that she had been all over him from the beauty pageant until the time they arrived at the hotel. In the name of PC BS, the career of the world's greatest Boxer was destroyed with echoes of Muhamad Ali!

[woodlawn]

>>The people

>>who disagree with you are the thousands upon thousands of

>>legislator, jurors, judges, practitioners and scholars who

>>have supported the rule we're discussing.

 

>What a crock of shit. Since when do jurors, practitioners,

>and scholars make the rules?

 

Given everything that you CLAIM you have going for you in life, I can't imagine what it is that has made you into the nasty, bitter hatemonger you keep showing yourself to be. What is wrong with you that makes it impossible for you to discuss a legal and political issue without pouring out a torrent of vile, hateful invective at anyone who disagrees with you? That question, not the rape shield issue, is what you really need to focus on.

 

Your manners would disgrace a sty, and you really don't deserve an answer.

 

For the benefit of others following this discussion, the legal system and the rules that shape it evolve over time through the interaction of exactly the people I keep mentioning. Laws like rape shield get passed when legislators consult the experience of legal scholars and practitioners about the issue. Along with practitioners, judges and jurors have to deal with such laws, and they also have ways of making their views known, pro or con. And their experiences are known and are heeded by those who legislate.

 

>I suspect that even those who

>ostensibly support the rule think it's a stupid idea. It just

>happens to be a profitable one for the legal profession.

 

You couldn't possibly make a statement that would better illustrate your ignorance of the practice and the business of law. You know nothing about it. All you have are a bunch of stupid prejudices.

 

>Don't

>>think I don't appreciate the humor of a lecture on honesty

>>from someone who was considering adopting an illegal alien

>>whom he has previously hired as a hooker so that he could

>stay

>>in this country. That is very, very humorous.

 

>He's not an illegal alien, you nitwit. He's an asylum

>applicant.

 

But that is not the story you told us at first. You started a thread here to ask whether anyone knows whether it would be possible for you to adopt a hooker you hired who had gotten into the country on a student visa that had either expired or was soon to expire. Although you call me a "nitwit," you seem too ignorant to know that any alien admitted into the country on a visa who violates the terms of that visa either by working or by overstaying is out of status -- in other words, an illegal. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

 

 

>If it weren't for the Defense of Marriage Act,

>he'd have his green card by now.

 

Oh? So you live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal? Which state would that be?

 

>Equally stupid is

>your confusion between someone who's dishonest and one who

>breaks laws. I break laws every day of my life, as do most

>people, and I don't give a shit.

 

And yet you get up on your high moral horse and lecture the rest of us about how terrible it is that lawyers try to game the legal system to win cases rather than aid in the search for truth. You, the same person who asked whether he could adopt a hooker who was in the country illegally, have the nerve to complain that other people are manipulating the system. You are nothing but a filthy hypocrite.

[woodlawn]

>Tyson was not permitted in Indiana to lead

>evidence that his accuser was the village trampoline,

 

Gee, I wonder why it is that people who oppose rape shield are sometimes suspected of being hostile to women. It certainly can't be the language they use.

[axebahia]

>Gee, I wonder why it is that people who oppose rape shield are

>sometimes suspected of being hostile to women. It certainly

>can't be the language they use.

 

No hostility on my part to women or to the truth. Tyson's accuser was a slut, and that evidence had direct bearing on her credibility with respect to the accusations she made about him. It was clearly more probitive than prejudicial. Had the trial ocurred in Canada not Indiana, the world would not have been deprived of his best boxing years!

[woodlawn]

>>Gee, I wonder why it is that people who oppose rape shield

>are sometimes suspected of being hostile to women. It certainly

>>can't be the language they use.

 

>No hostility on my part to women or to the truth. Tyson's

>accuser was a slut,

 

A "slut" meaning what, exactly? That she often had sex with men? Could you explain how that differs from your sexual habits? Are you a "slut"?

 

 

>and that evidence had direct bearing on

>her credibility with respect to the accusations she made about

>him.

 

Sure. If a woman likes having sex with a lot of men, that certainly shows she can't be believed if she claims she refused anyone. Makes sense to me.

 

>Had the

>trial ocurred in Canada not Indiana, the world would not have

>been deprived of his best boxing years!

 

And more than one other boxer might have lost part of his ear? Yes, what a great sportsman Tyson was, to be sure!

[axebahia]

>Are you a "slut"?

 

Yes!

 

>Sure. If a woman likes having sex with a lot of men, that

>certainly shows she can't be believed if she claims she

>refused anyone. Makes sense to me.

 

If a woman has a history of slutty behaviour before she meets a famous person and the night she meets the famous person, that seems to me to be propper evidence to go before a jury to asses the credibility of her claim that the sex with the famous person was not consensual. In the Tyson case, the Indiana jury was not allowed to hear of her past, her behaviour at the beauty contest or what onlookers observed as she exited the limo and entered the hotel. All they could hear was whjat she claimed happened when the room door was closed which was inconsistent with all the other "evidence".

 

>And more than one other boxer might have lost part of his ear?

> Yes, what a great sportsman Tyson was, to be sure!

 

Well most boxing fans and boxers know that Holyfield is notorious for low blows and head butts. If you did that to me, I'd bite off your ear too. One more reason why evidence of prior consistent acts should be admissible in rape cases and boxing matches!

[woodlawn]

>>Are you a "slut"?

>

>Yes!

 

So when one of your pals at the office asks if you're seeking anyone seriously at the moment, that's what you say? "No, I'm a slut, I'm a 'village trampoline' just like the woman who claimed Mike Tyson raped her." Yes, I can picture that.

 

 

>If a woman has a history of slutty behaviour before she meets

>a famous person and the night she meets the famous person,

>that seems to me to be propper evidence to go before a jury to

>asses the credibility of her claim that the sex with the

>famous person was not consensual.

 

 

So what is "a history of slutty behaviour"? Is there a particular ratio of occasions on which she consented to occasions on which she didn't consent that makes a woman a slut? Or is it determined by how many different sex partners she had within a certain period of time, even if she refused twice as many as she accepted? Since you claim to know that this particular woman was a "slut," you must know how to define the term. Enlighten us.

 

 

 

In the Tyson case, the

>Indiana jury was not allowed to hear of her past, her

>behaviour at the beauty contest or what onlookers observed as

>she exited the limo and entered the hotel. All they could

>hear was whjat she claimed happened when the room door was

>closed which was inconsistent with all the other "evidence".

>

>>And more than one other boxer might have lost part of his

>ear?

>> Yes, what a great sportsman Tyson was, to be sure!

>

>Well most boxing fans and boxers know that Holyfield is

>notorious for low blows and head butts. If you did that to

>me, I'd bite off your ear too. One more reason why evidence

>of prior consistent acts should be admissible in rape cases

>and boxing matches!

[Doug69]

>But I did state the reason. You just keep pretending I didn't

>because, as I said, you want to make the same argument over

>and over. The reason is, for the ninth or tenth time, that

>observation has convinced many people that this type of

>evidence is far more likely to inflame the prejudices of the

>jurors than to aid them in finding the truth. What part of

>that sentence do you NOT understand?

 

I understand that you think that this evidence is so much more prejudicial than most that it merits a per se ban. I've gotten that from the beginning. What I don't get, because you haven't given, is an explanation as to what is it about this evidence in particular that makes it so uniquely prejudical.

 

Why do you not trust judges, and juries, to hear this information when the judge rules it's more probative than prejudicial? Why don't you trust judges and juries to combat the prejudicial effects of this evidenc in particular? Saying that this evidence is uniquely prejudicial, without saying why, is NOT providing an explanation or a rationale.

 

Stating your view with a conclusion is NOT the same as providing rationale for your view, nor is pointing out that a lot of other people share the same view. So far, that's all you've done.

 

>But how often it happens is exactly the point. You tried to

>argue earlier that the rape shield law and the prior bad acts

>rule aren't comparable because the latter has exceptions.

>But, as I pointed out, those exceptions enable admission in

>very rare cases. So they ARE comparable. Again, is there

>some part of that you do NOT understand?

 

Prior acts of the defendant are admissible where the Judge finds that such prior acts show propensity to commit a similar act through plan, motive, etc.

 

Prior acts of the alleged victim are not admissible under those circumstances.

 

How can you equate them when they are the opposite?

 

>This isn't "Crossfire." When people deliberately distort what

>I've said in the past, I have no hesitation in saying so. As

>for insults, I use them only in response to personal attacks,

>not pre-emptively. That's been my rule since I first started

>posting here. You cannot say the same about yourself.

 

You have a very shifting definition of what constitutes an "insult." The definition is very broad when it's time to see if anyone else crossed the line first, but very narrow when applied to what you write.

 

In most discussions that I have seen you in which go on for any length of time, you end up hurling all sorts of angry, bitter, personal invective at the person with whom you have the discussion. Saying that "he did it first" hardly makes you the Beacon of Civil Discourse - even if your claim were true, and in many cases, it simply isn't.

 

>Whoa! The source you quoted didn't say one of twelve is

>proven to be fabricated. Others may let you get away

>with making shit up to support your arguments. Not me.

 

You need to read the excerpt I posted more carefully. It did not say that 1 out of every 12 reports of rape are unfounded. It said that 1 out of every 12 are unfounded due to investigators finding evidence disproving it or recantation by the alleged victim..

 

It is saying that 1 out of every 12 is determined to be unfounded for those reasons. It is most certainly not saying that 11 out of 12 rape allegations are true and valid, and I think you know that. The claim it is making is exactly what it said: that 1 out of every 12 rape claims are proven to be false for either of those 2 reasons. It is saying nothing about the other 11 other than that they are not proven to be false for those two reasons.

 

It's as if there were a study finding that 5% of all calls to 911 were false alarms due to someone accidentally dialing 911. That would hardly mean that the other 95% of the calls are genuine emergienies; they could be false alarms for reasons other than the caller accidentally dialing 911.

 

There's no need to distort studies in order to make your point.

 

And I said, I think that it's easy to be cavalier about 1 out of every 12 rape defendants being falsely accused of rape if you're not one of them, but I think that in light of the consequences of being falsely accused of rape, it's vitally important that a rape defendant have the opportunity to present all the evidence to the jury relevant to his guilt or innocence.

[Doug69]

>But I did state the reason. You just keep pretending I didn't

>because, as I said, you want to make the same argument over

>and over. The reason is, for the ninth or tenth time, that

>observation has convinced many people that this type of

>evidence is far more likely to inflame the prejudices of the

>jurors than to aid them in finding the truth. What part of

>that sentence do you NOT understand?

 

I understand that you think that this evidence is so much more prejudicial than most that it merits a per se ban. I've gotten that from the beginning. What I don't get, because you haven't given, is an explanation as to what is it about this evidence in particular that makes it so uniquely prejudical.

 

Why do you not trust judges, and juries, to hear this information when the judge rules it's more probative than prejudicial? Why don't you trust judges and juries to combat the prejudicial effects of this evidenc in particular? Saying that this evidence is uniquely prejudicial, without saying why, is NOT providing an explanation or a rationale.

 

Stating your view with a conclusion is NOT the same as providing rationale for your view, nor is pointing out that a lot of other people share the same view. So far, that's all you've done.

 

>But how often it happens is exactly the point. You tried to

>argue earlier that the rape shield law and the prior bad acts

>rule aren't comparable because the latter has exceptions.

>But, as I pointed out, those exceptions enable admission in

>very rare cases. So they ARE comparable. Again, is there

>some part of that you do NOT understand?

 

Prior acts of the defendant are admissible where the Judge finds that such prior acts show propensity to commit a similar act through plan, motive, etc.

 

Prior acts of the alleged victim are not admissible under those circumstances.

 

How can you equate them when they are the opposite?

 

>This isn't "Crossfire." When people deliberately distort what

>I've said in the past, I have no hesitation in saying so. As

>for insults, I use them only in response to personal attacks,

>not pre-emptively. That's been my rule since I first started

>posting here. You cannot say the same about yourself.

 

You have a very shifting definition of what constitutes an "insult." The definition is very broad when it's time to see if anyone else crossed the line first, but very narrow when applied to what you write.

 

In most discussions that I have seen you in which go on for any length of time, you end up hurling all sorts of angry, bitter, personal invective at the person with whom you have the discussion. Saying that "he did it first" hardly makes you the Beacon of Civil Discourse - even if your claim were true, and in many cases, it simply isn't.

 

>Whoa! The source you quoted didn't say one of twelve is

>proven to be fabricated. Others may let you get away

>with making shit up to support your arguments. Not me.

 

You need to read the excerpt I posted more carefully. It did not say that 1 out of every 12 reports of rape are unfounded. It said that 1 out of every 12 are unfounded due to investigators finding evidence disproving it or recantation by the alleged victim..

 

It is saying that 1 out of every 12 is determined to be unfounded for those reasons. It is most certainly not saying that 11 out of 12 rape allegations are true and valid, and I think you know that. The claim it is making is exactly what it said: that 1 out of every 12 rape claims are proven to be false for either of those 2 reasons. It is saying nothing about the other 11 other than that they are not proven to be false for those two reasons.

 

It's as if there were a study finding that 5% of all calls to 911 were false alarms due to someone accidentally dialing 911. That would hardly mean that the other 95% of the calls are genuine emergienies; they could be false alarms for reasons other than the caller accidentally dialing 911.

 

There's no need to distort studies in order to make your point.

 

And I said, I think that it's easy to be cavalier about 1 out of every 12 rape defendants being falsely accused of rape if you're not one of them, but I think that in light of the consequences of being falsely accused of rape, it's vitally important that a rape defendant have the opportunity to present all the evidence to the jury relevant to his guilt or innocence.

[Doug69]

>But I did state the reason. You just keep pretending I didn't

>because, as I said, you want to make the same argument over

>and over. The reason is, for the ninth or tenth time, that

>observation has convinced many people that this type of

>evidence is far more likely to inflame the prejudices of the

>jurors than to aid them in finding the truth. What part of

>that sentence do you NOT understand?

 

I understand that you think that this evidence is so much more prejudicial than most that it merits a per se ban. I've gotten that from the beginning. What I don't get, because you haven't given, is an explanation as to what is it about this evidence in particular that makes it so uniquely prejudical.

 

Why do you not trust judges, and juries, to hear this information when the judge rules it's more probative than prejudicial? Why don't you trust judges and juries to combat the prejudicial effects of this evidenc in particular? Saying that this evidence is uniquely prejudicial, without saying why, is NOT providing an explanation or a rationale.

 

Stating your view with a conclusion is NOT the same as providing rationale for your view, nor is pointing out that a lot of other people share the same view. So far, that's all you've done.

 

>But how often it happens is exactly the point. You tried to

>argue earlier that the rape shield law and the prior bad acts

>rule aren't comparable because the latter has exceptions.

>But, as I pointed out, those exceptions enable admission in

>very rare cases. So they ARE comparable. Again, is there

>some part of that you do NOT understand?

 

Prior acts of the defendant are admissible where the Judge finds that such prior acts show propensity to commit a similar act through plan, motive, etc.

 

Prior acts of the alleged victim are not admissible under those circumstances.

 

How can you equate them when they are the opposite?

 

>This isn't "Crossfire." When people deliberately distort what

>I've said in the past, I have no hesitation in saying so. As

>for insults, I use them only in response to personal attacks,

>not pre-emptively. That's been my rule since I first started

>posting here. You cannot say the same about yourself.

 

You have a very shifting definition of what constitutes an "insult." The definition is very broad when it's time to see if anyone else crossed the line first, but very narrow when applied to what you write.

 

In most discussions that I have seen you in which go on for any length of time, you end up hurling all sorts of angry, bitter, personal invective at the person with whom you have the discussion. Saying that "he did it first" hardly makes you the Beacon of Civil Discourse - even if your claim were true, and in many cases, it simply isn't.

 

>Whoa! The source you quoted didn't say one of twelve is

>proven to be fabricated. Others may let you get away

>with making shit up to support your arguments. Not me.

 

You need to read the excerpt I posted more carefully. It did not say that 1 out of every 12 reports of rape are unfounded. It said that 1 out of every 12 are unfounded due to investigators finding evidence disproving it or recantation by the alleged victim..

 

It is saying that 1 out of every 12 is determined to be unfounded for those reasons. It is most certainly not saying that 11 out of 12 rape allegations are true and valid, and I think you know that. The claim it is making is exactly what it said: that 1 out of every 12 rape claims are proven to be false for either of those 2 reasons. It is saying nothing about the other 11 other than that they are not proven to be false for those two reasons.

 

It's as if there were a study finding that 5% of all calls to 911 were false alarms due to someone accidentally dialing 911. That would hardly mean that the other 95% of the calls are genuine emergienies; they could be false alarms for reasons other than the caller accidentally dialing 911.

 

There's no need to distort studies in order to make your point.

 

And I said, I think that it's easy to be cavalier about 1 out of every 12 rape defendants being falsely accused of rape if you're not one of them, but I think that in light of the consequences of being falsely accused of rape, it's vitally important that a rape defendant have the opportunity to present all the evidence to the jury relevant to his guilt or innocence.

[Doug69]

>But I did state the reason. You just keep pretending I didn't

>because, as I said, you want to make the same argument over

>and over. The reason is, for the ninth or tenth time, that

>observation has convinced many people that this type of

>evidence is far more likely to inflame the prejudices of the

>jurors than to aid them in finding the truth. What part of

>that sentence do you NOT understand?

 

I understand that you think that this evidence is so much more prejudicial than most that it merits a per se ban. I've gotten that from the beginning. What I don't get, because you haven't given, is an explanation as to what is it about this evidence in particular that makes it so uniquely prejudical.

 

Why do you not trust judges, and juries, to hear this information when the judge rules it's more probative than prejudicial? Why don't you trust judges and juries to combat the prejudicial effects of this evidenc in particular? Saying that this evidence is uniquely prejudicial, without saying why, is NOT providing an explanation or a rationale.

 

Stating your view with a conclusion is NOT the same as providing rationale for your view, nor is pointing out that a lot of other people share the same view. So far, that's all you've done.

 

>But how often it happens is exactly the point. You tried to

>argue earlier that the rape shield law and the prior bad acts

>rule aren't comparable because the latter has exceptions.

>But, as I pointed out, those exceptions enable admission in

>very rare cases. So they ARE comparable. Again, is there

>some part of that you do NOT understand?

 

Prior acts of the defendant are admissible where the Judge finds that such prior acts show propensity to commit a similar act through plan, motive, etc.

 

Prior acts of the alleged victim are not admissible under those circumstances.

 

How can you equate them when they are the opposite?

 

>This isn't "Crossfire." When people deliberately distort what

>I've said in the past, I have no hesitation in saying so. As

>for insults, I use them only in response to personal attacks,

>not pre-emptively. That's been my rule since I first started

>posting here. You cannot say the same about yourself.

 

You have a very shifting definition of what constitutes an "insult." The definition is very broad when it's time to see if anyone else crossed the line first, but very narrow when applied to what you write.

 

In most discussions that I have seen you in which go on for any length of time, you end up hurling all sorts of angry, bitter, personal invective at the person with whom you have the discussion. Saying that "he did it first" hardly makes you the Beacon of Civil Discourse - even if your claim were true, and in many cases, it simply isn't.

 

>Whoa! The source you quoted didn't say one of twelve is

>proven to be fabricated. Others may let you get away

>with making shit up to support your arguments. Not me.

 

You need to read the excerpt I posted more carefully. It did not say that 1 out of every 12 reports of rape are unfounded. It said that 1 out of every 12 are unfounded due to investigators finding evidence disproving it or recantation by the alleged victim..

 

It is saying that 1 out of every 12 is determined to be unfounded for those reasons. It is most certainly not saying that 11 out of 12 rape allegations are true and valid, and I think you know that. The claim it is making is exactly what it said: that 1 out of every 12 rape claims are proven to be false for either of those 2 reasons. It is saying nothing about the other 11 other than that they are not proven to be false for those two reasons.

 

It's as if there were a study finding that 5% of all calls to 911 were false alarms due to someone accidentally dialing 911. That would hardly mean that the other 95% of the calls are genuine emergienies; they could be false alarms for reasons other than the caller accidentally dialing 911.

 

There's no need to distort studies in order to make your point.

 

And I said, I think that it's easy to be cavalier about 1 out of every 12 rape defendants being falsely accused of rape if you're not one of them, but I think that in light of the consequences of being falsely accused of rape, it's vitally important that a rape defendant have the opportunity to present all the evidence to the jury relevant to his guilt or innocence.

[Doug69]

>Unlike you, I'm not childish enough to say that anyone who

>disagrees with me on this issue must have something wrong with

>his mind.

 

I did not say that anyone with a different view on rape shield laws has something wrong with his mind. I said that anyone who denies that rape defendants are sometimes wrongfully accused has something wrong with their mind, because it is such a self-evident fact that to deny it demonstrates a refusal to live in reality.

 

I agree that rape shield laws have two rational sides and that a person can rationally argue in favor of such odious laws, even though I am strongly opposed to them. I do not, however, think it's rational to deny that men are sometimes wrongly accused of rape, particularly given the number of recantations that exist - both prior and subsequent to conviction.

 

I will also take this opportunity to note the irony of your protests over those who question the motives or mental health of others who have different views. Your protests appear in the same post where you say it's "especially likely" that I hold my view about rape shield laws because I want to limit a woman's sexual choices and that it's "especially likely" that women who aren't chaste have no right to complain about being raped. I think no such thing, and the fact that you say it's "especially likely" that I do makes you the last person who should be complaining about what is said about you by others.

[woodlawn]

>I did not say that anyone with a different view on rape shield

>laws has something wrong with his mind. I said that anyone

>who denies that rape defendants are sometimes wrongfully

>accused has something wrong with their mind,

 

And who is it who denied that? Show me the post.

 

>I do not, however,

>think it's rational to deny that men are sometimes wrongly

>accused of rape, particularly given the number of recantations

>that exist - both prior and subsequent to conviction.

 

It's kind of hard to figure out why you brought that up unless there is someone here denying that wrongful accusations sometimes happen. Who would that be?

 

 

>I will also take this opportunity to note the irony of your

>protests over those who question the motives or mental health

>of others who have different views. Your protests appear in

>the same post where you say it's "especially likely" that I

>hold my view about rape shield laws because I want to limit a

>woman's sexual choices

 

Whoa! I'm rather sensitive about people who make things up, claim I said them, then complain about my "saying" them. I never said YOU are one of the people who want to limit women's choices. I leave that judgment to others.

 

 

and that it's "especially likely" that

>women who aren't chaste have no right to complain about being

>raped. I think no such thing, and the fact that you say it's

>"especially likely" that I do makes you the last person who

>should be complaining about what is said about you by others.

 

Once again, you are not going to get away with claiming I said something I never said. I don't know what the motives are for the many complaints about feminists you've posted here. But there certainly are men who oppose laws like rape shield because they don't believe that women should have sexual freedom. Only someone who is not in touch with reality would deny that. I think you've provided us with enough material so that members can form an opinion on whether you are one of those.

[woodlawn]

>What I don't get, because you

>haven't given, is an explanation as to what is it about

>this evidence in particular that makes it so uniquely

>prejudical.

 

I'd have thought that would be obvious to any observer of the legal system. Any such person ought to be aware that during the past thirty or forty years juries have often been composed of people who grew up in an era when it was believed that women should not have the same sexual freedom as men. When evidence of sexual history is referred to as prejudicial, that is the prejudice that is involved. What did you think it was?

 

>Why do you not trust judges, and juries, to hear this

>information when the judge rules it's more probative than

>prejudicial?

 

See above.

 

>>But how often it happens is exactly the point. You tried to

>>argue earlier that the rape shield law and the prior bad

>acts rule aren't comparable because the latter has exceptions.

>>But, as I pointed out, those exceptions enable admission in

>>very rare cases. So they ARE comparable. Again, is there

>>some part of that you do NOT understand?

 

>Prior acts of the defendant are admissible where the

>Judge finds that such prior acts show propensity to commit a

>similar act through plan, motive, etc.

 

>Prior acts of the alleged victim are not admissible

>under those circumstances.

 

>How can you equate them when they are the opposite?

 

You have misstated the rule. It isn't the case that ALL prior acts of the complainant are not admissible. It's only the complainant's sexual history that is not. If, for example, the complainant has a history of making false allegations of rape, that would certainly be admissible. Why did you pretend the rule is something other than it is?

 

>You have a very shifting definition of what constitutes an

>"insult."

 

Hardly. And the invective that people here, including you, use is so blatant that there can rarely be any dispute about what was intended. I can quote from some of your posts if you like.

 

>Saying that "he did it first" hardly makes

>you the Beacon of Civil Discourse - even if your claim were

>true, and in many cases, it simply isn't.

 

Your statement is false. The truth is that while I refuse to be the first to use personal attacks in any particular discussion, I will not be a complacent target for the attacks of others. You cannot claim that you exercise even that much restraint.

 

>The claim it is making is exactly

>what it said: that 1 out of every 12 rape claims are proven

>to be false for either of those 2 reasons. It is saying

>nothing about the other 11 other than that they are not proven

>to be false for those two reasons.

 

Actually that is NOT what the language you quoted said. The language stated that with respect to one of twelve, some were recanted while for others the investigators could find no evidence to support them. That hardly means the latter sort were false. And with regard to eleven of twelve, you seem to be saying that it is NOT the case that the accusations were recanted and NOT the case that investigators could find no supporting evidence, correct?

 

 

>There's no need to distort studies in order to make your

>point.

 

Then stop doing it.

 

>And I said, I think that it's easy to be cavalier about 1 out

>of every 12 rape defendants being falsely accused of rape if

>you're not one of them,

 

Just as it is easy to say that a woman's sexual history should be fair game for a defense attorney whenever she makes a complaint of rape -- easy if you're not a woman and have little empathy or respect for that sex.

[axebahia]

>So when one of your pals at the office asks if you're seeking

>anyone seriously at the moment, that's what you say? "No, I'm

>a slut, I'm a 'village trampoline' just like the woman who

>claimed Mike Tyson raped her."

 

No, but if I accused anyone of raping me, I would fully expect that my slutty behaviour would be admitted into evidence as to the credibility of my claim. I think even you should be able to see an analogy that works, and one that does not. As for what constitutes "slutty" behaviour", you know it when you see it. In other words, let the trier of fact decide.

[woodlawn]

>>So when one of your pals at the office asks if you're

>seeking

>>anyone seriously at the moment, that's what you say? "No,

>I'm

>>a slut, I'm a 'village trampoline' just like the woman who

>>claimed Mike Tyson raped her."

 

>No,

 

Oh, I see. You don't think it's an insult to call a woman a slut, but you wouldn't apply that term to yourself if someone you know asked you about your sex life. And that is because . . . ?

 

> As for

>what constitutes "slutty" behaviour", you know it when you see

>it.

 

Right. But since you are telling us that this particular woman is a slut, I have assumed you know some specific facts about her behavior that would lead you to make that judgment. Sounds like you don't.