If there are to be rape shield laws, why not murder shield? Why not theft shield?

by **orlondo100** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:52 am

As I stated in a previous question we can all agree that rape is heinous crime. So is murder. So is assault and battery. So is taking someone’s hard earned money and embezzling it.

If I were prosecuting John Smith for embezzlement you can bet your life I’d want to know if he been accused before. I’d want to know if he had any criminal associations. If the defense contended that the victim had a history of pursuing shady financial dealings and could prove it, that may well be extremely relevant to the case as our victim may not be a victim at all, but a conspirator.

Yet, with r@pe shield laws, the defense is generally prohibited from bringing up the sexual history of the accuser. What if she had made numerous accusations in the past? Could that not suggest she’s lying again here? What if she had a history of reckless sexual behavior and the defense claims the sex was consensual? Wouldn’t that be relevant to the defense’s claims?

I feel much about these laws as I do about hate crime laws. Unnecessary. Prejudicial. Overly reliant on emotion.

by **dent81** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:57 am

With the rape shield laws, you can still bring up her past legal accusations of rape. You just can't disclose her sexual history, but you can disclose her legal history, which would include former rape accusations.

by **koltin** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:59 am

Because we live in a society where people feel like we need to treat women like "queens" and give them everything they want to make their lives more comfortable...

by **gwen** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:11 am

Because there isn't a long history of people shaming and intimidating victims of other crimes. Rape is the only crime for which the victims, themselves, are typically blamed. How often do we hear "oh, she must have been leading him on", "what was she doing at a bar that late at night", she must have been dressed slutty."

EDIT: Yeah, and those problems in the south didn't fix themselves. They required civil rights legislation.

by **voliny13** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:19 am

Because there isn't a long history of people shaming and intimidating victims of other crimes. Rape is the only crime for which the victims, themselves, are typically blamed. How often do we hear "oh, she must have been leading him on", "what was she doing at a bar that late at night", she must have been dressed slutty."

EDIT: Yeah, and those problems in the south didn't fix themselves. They required civil rights legislation.

Rape shield laws are designed to convict accused rapists. It's easier to do this if evidence is forbidden to be admitted or if cross-examination is outlawed. And it's only to make rape victims and feminists feel better. Nevermind the fact they are sending innocent men to prison for crimes they never committed.

by **muata2** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:21 am

Making accusations of rape is not sexual history, so I presume these would be able to be brought up even with rape shield laws. If the accusor had a history of bringing charges in which the defendent was found not guilty, that would certainly be admissible. "reckless" sexual behavior is somewhat in the eye of the beholder and not really relevant to whether a person gave consent to one particular episode in question, so it should not be admissible. Should the fact that a person was swindled in the past have a bearing on whether they were swindled in a current situation?

by **delrico** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:28 am

Rape is the crime with the most people who lobbied for this kind of change. The others don't. It also helped that rape is typically a male-on-female crime and thus was seen as sexist. Combine that with the relatively low report rate and people were ready to throw standard legal practice out the window to help increase the chances of conviction as much as possible. The only other type of victim/alleged victim who typically get this kind of protection are children. I don't know what to make of that.

But if enough people got together and demanded similar legislation for other types of crimes they might get it passed there too. It'd be harder to get that kind of sympathy since the majority of violent crime victims that don't include sexual crimes are men, but it would be possible.

by **unss94** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:31 am

Rape is the crime with the most people who lobbied for this kind of change. The others don't. It also helped that rape is typically a male-on-female crime and thus was seen as sexist. Combine that with the relatively low report rate and people were ready to throw standard legal practice out the window to help increase the chances of conviction as much as possible. The only other type of victim/alleged victim who typically get this kind of protection are children. I don't know what to make of that.

But if enough people got together and demanded similar legislation for other types of crimes they might get it passed there too. It'd be harder to get that kind of sympathy since the majority of violent crime victims that don't include sexual crimes are men, but it would be possible.

Because women can (realistically) be accused of murder or theft.

EDIT: My point exactly. I'm aware that it happens, but I said "realistically" because he would not be taken seriously.

by **kendrix** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:49 am

Because no group has lobbied in favor of murder shield or theft shield laws, like the women's groups did in favor of rape shield laws.

The concept, although it has some valid points, is at its core discriminatory in nature, and its very existence surprises me, especially since Americans like to brag about the "most fair justice system in the world".

Anyhow...where I live, if the court determines that it's in the best interest of an alleged victim(and in many cases, in the best interest of an alleged offender) to close the trail for public, they do just that. The public then is not allowed ANY information about the process, the name of the victim/offender/witnesses...all is kept behind closed doors.
Also, just last year the European court of Justice, whose rulings apply to all EU members, ruled that not allowing the defense to question the alleged victim of his/her (sexual) history is contrary to the EU constitution and places additional unreasonable burden on the alleged offender, infringing on the principle of the presumption of innocence guaranteed under the article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

by **han** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:51 am

WTF is wrong with you. Really im not joking. You must live in your own ivory tower very happy. Listen douche bag corporate machines don't care what happens to you to make money for themselves.

Be it armament
Be it natural resource
Be it labour
Be it sex

As far as I can see the big push of your espouse of corporatism is no more men and no more women just a bunch of fvkers, wankers and bastards. Hey what ever each to their own however but who has the most to gain in your and others last straw of that bourgeoisie consciousness?

EDIT: WOW 4 TD OHHOOO sh1t fvck the worst of yahoo don't like me, what am I going to do?

Maybe just fart in their face and tell them they have to pay for the pleasure. A bit like wanting to be a member of the republican party. Hey that is quiet an accomplishment for your stinkers to actually want to be a turd with a use!

Advertisments:

Useful Links: