|
|
|
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1748156
EAGLE, Colo. -- The judge in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case
decided late Monday he will reconsider whether to allow defense
attorneys to ask the alleged victim detailed questions about her
sexual past, a decision that will delay her first appearance in court.
Bryant's accuser had been scheduled to testify Tuesday, but that was
postponed until the March 24-25 hearing, state courts spokeswoman
Karen Salaz said.
State District Judge Terry Ruckriegle initially ruled Monday that
prosecutors were too late in asking him to limit questions defense
attorneys could ask the woman. During a closed-door meeting, he agreed
to reconsider at the prosecution's request, Salaz said.
Prosecutor Mark Hurlbert admitted he had told a Colorado Bureau of
Investigation agent not to turn over underwear that the woman wore the
night of her encounter with Bryant and the next day to a hospital.
"I haven't heard why," Ruckriegle said. "Do you think they're going to
tamper with it?"
"Judge, I don't necessarily want to go there," Hurlbert replied. The
judge said the material must be turned over by Tuesday.
The public portion of the hearing ended shortly after noon. Before the
attorneys disappeared behind closed doors, a Los Angeles police
officer who worked as a security guard for Bryant last summer took the
stand to describe how investigators showed up at the resort to
question Bryant.
Troy Laster said he believed the authorities had come only to notify
Bryant of something that had happened elsewhere.
"I had been with him for the past 48 hours and wasn't aware of
anything involving my client," Laster said. "I didn't have any reason
to think it was bad."
|
| |
| |
In article <6bd12cd6.0403012031.4e0873b9@posting.google.com>,
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1748156
EAGLE, Colo. -- The judge in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case
decided late Monday he will reconsider whether to allow defense
attorneys to ask the alleged victim detailed questions about her
sexual past, a decision that will delay her first appearance in court.
If the judge does not allow her to be cross examined about sexual
relations after Kobe but before the rape kit, the the trial will be a
miscarriage of justice.
|
| |
| |
If the judge does not allow her to be cross
examined about sexual relations after Kobe
but before the rape kit, the the trial will
be a miscarriage of justice.
You're not the first person to advocate re-writing the
evidence rules to take away existing in-court protections for rape
victims. But be aware that people who disagree see this as an,
"Oh, that poor alleged rapist! He needs more help defending
himself!" kind of attitude.
I'm just saying.
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<4044a1df$0$4882$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>...
You're not the first person to advocate re-writing the
evidence rules to take away existing in-court protections for rape
victims.
Protections for rape *accusers* you mean. Whether they are victims or
not is not legally ascertained *before* the trial, nor should it be.
The presumption is supposed to be for the innocence of the accused
till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This should require two
things, proof that a crime was committed and proof that the accused
committed it. Do you think it a good idea to start the trial assuming
that woman was raped? Or do you think that this should be one of the
things that needs to be proven during the trial?
And in no other crime to we allow accusations in secret, or
protections for the accuser, who is not even on trial. What does she
need protections from?
But be aware that people who disagree see this as an,
"Oh, that poor alleged rapist! He needs more help defending
himself!" kind of attitude.
I'm just saying.
From here it looks like the idea of a fair trial for the accused is
something you object to in principle. It looks like you simply believe
the accuser, and take any questioning of her as blaming the victim.
If you should ever find yourself in Kobe's position, having committed
no rape, perhaps you would better understand the reason why the
protections in court are supposed to be for the accused. And perhaps
when people simply assume you are guilty, you'll question the reason
for assuming innocence till guilt is proven. At least I'd hope so.
But in no other felony is the accused's defense summarily limited. And
the notion that the accusers sexual history is always irrelevant in a
sex crime trial is so monumentally stupid that one wonders what genius
thought it up.
Surely the basic problems of rape shield laws obstructing a defense
are well illustrated by the Kobe Bryant case. Evidence of her sexual
escapades with many men that week will be presented as evidence that
Kobe Bryant raped her. Surely any thinking being must see that this is
not justice in action. Rape shield laws prevent the jury from being
told what the evidence is evidence *of*.
Whether Kobe Bryant is guilty or innocent, he deserves a fair trial
and to defend himself in court. Rape shield laws fail for both
presuming that the woman was raped, and for obstructing evidence that
would call his guilt into question. Both are wrong in a criminal court
setting.
Rich
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:<4044a1df$0$4882$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>...
You're not the first person to advocate
re-writing the evidence rules to take
away existing in-court protections for rape
victims.
Protections for rape *accusers* you mean.
No, I don't. You've missed the point.
The rules are intended to protect victims. That some accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
And in no other crime to we allow accusations
in secret, or protections for the accuser,
Which is why the victim-protection rules have been criticized
by some very credible people.
who is not even on trial.
What does she need protections from?
If you knew much about trials of sexual assault cases you
wouldn't have typed the previous two lines.
If you should ever find yourself in
Kobe's position, having committed
no rape,
*Now* who's drawing conclusions before the facts are in?
...the notion
that the accusers sexual history is always
irrelevant in a sex crime trial is so
monumentally stupid that one wonders what
genius thought it up.
You've misunderstood the rules. No credible person says it's
always irrelevant. Just that in the balance of things it's better
kept out.
Rape shield laws fail for both
presuming that the woman was raped,
That's not what they do at all. (At least not in federal
court. I'm not up on the Colo. rules.)
and for obstructing evidence that
would call his guilt into question.
Both are wrong in a criminal court
setting.
That's your opinion. The duly elected representatives of the
people of the United States disagree with you.
Have you written your Congressperson?
|
| |
| |
news:<4044a1df$0$4882$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>...
You're not the first person to advocate
re-writing the evidence rules to take
away existing in-court protections for rape
victims.
No, I don't. You've missed the point.
The rules are intended to protect victims. That some accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
Very well stated, thank you.
td
Which is why the victim-protection rules have been criticized
by some very credible people.
If you knew much about trials of sexual assault cases you
wouldn't have typed the previous two lines.
*Now* who's drawing conclusions before the facts are in?
You've misunderstood the rules. No credible person says it's
always irrelevant. Just that in the balance of things it's better
kept out.
That's not what they do at all. (At least not in federal
court. I'm not up on the Colo. rules.)
That's your opinion. The duly elected representatives of the
people of the United States disagree with you.
Have you written your Congressperson?
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote:
You're not the first person to advocate
re-writing the evidence rules to take
away existing in-court protections for rape
victims.
No, I don't. You've missed the point.
The rules are intended to protect victims. That some accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
Hence a valid reason to protect the accused name until proven guilty,
thus protecting the victim's of false accusations.
And in no other crime to we allow accusations
in secret, or protections for the accuser,
Which is why the victim-protection rules have been criticized
by some very credible people.
If you knew much about trials of sexual assault cases you
wouldn't have typed the previous two lines.
*Now* who's drawing conclusions before the facts are in?
Erm, the COURT? You know: Presumed innocent until proven guilty...?
...the notion
that the accusers sexual history is always
irrelevant in a sex crime trial is so
monumentally stupid that one wonders what
genius thought it up.
You've misunderstood the rules. No credible person says it's
always irrelevant. Just that in the balance of things it's better
kept out.
That's not what they do at all. (At least not in federal
court. I'm not up on the Colo. rules.)
That's your opinion. The duly elected representatives of the
people of the United States disagree with you.
Have you written your Congressperson?
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<404580c2$0$4887$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>...
news:<4044a1df$0$4882$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>...
You're not the first person to advocate
re-writing the evidence rules to take
away existing in-court protections for rape
victims.
No, I don't. You've missed the point.
The rules are intended to protect victims.
No, **accusers**. You miss the point clean.
That some accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
Did we? I thought that the basic idea behind our legal system was
something along the lines that it is better to let 100 guilty men go
free than to imprison one innocent man. Clearly you disagree. Would
you imprison 100 innocent men to get one guilty man in jail? Probably.
And in no other crime to we allow accusations
in secret, or protections for the accuser,
Which is why the victim-protection rules have been criticized
by some very credible people.
They are not victim protection rules, they are *accuser* protection
laws. There is a big difference.
who is not even on trial.
What does she need protections from?
If you knew much about trials of sexual assault cases you
wouldn't have typed the previous two lines.
So you can't tell me. No big shock here.
If you should ever find yourself in
Kobe's position, having committed
no rape,
*Now* who's drawing conclusions before the facts are in?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I invented a hypothetical
situation so we could discuss it. You made no attempt to do so.
...the notion
that the accusers sexual history is always
irrelevant in a sex crime trial is so
monumentally stupid that one wonders what
genius thought it up.
You've misunderstood the rules.
Do I?
No credible person says it's always irrelevant.
Virtually every woman in talk.rape says so, it's been said just
recently as a matter of fact. And this also seems to be the way judges
think.
Just that in the balance of things it's better kept out.
No doubt you'd also prevent alibies from being presented to juries in
murder trials. Don't confuse the jury with evidence, eh?
Rape shield laws fail for both
presuming that the woman was raped,
That's not what they do at all.
Then why do you keep saying things like "The rules are intended to
protect victims"? Yes, rape shield laws assume that the woman is a
victim, this is a simple fact. And they do so in a criminal court,
which is a travesty of justice.
(At least not in federal court. I'm not up on the Colo. rules.)
Is Kobe being tried in federal court? Long answer, no.
and for obstructing evidence that would call his guilt into question.
Both are wrong in a criminal court setting.
That's your opinion.
That's a fact.
The duly elected representatives of the
people of the United States disagree with you.
Prove it then. Our judiciary is not, by and large, responsible to the
American people, except for a few lower level judges that are elected.
Most judges are appointed.
But what you have presented is an appeal to authority, which is a
fallacious argument that says nothing about the subject under
discussion, even if it's true.
Have you written your Congressperson?
Do I need a note from mommy to discuss this with you?
Rich
|
| |
| |
< Too much confusion to begin to address it all. >
I have no idea what you are talking about.
That's quite clear.
The duly elected representatives of the
people of the United States disagree with you.
Prove it then.
The so-called "rape shield" rules among the Federal Rules of
Evidence, unlike the great majority of the Rules which were made
by judges and lawyers, were passed by an act of Congress.
And as I said, I'm not up on the Colorado rules. If you know
something about how they're different, please enlighten us.
Otherwise you're just ranting.
But what you have presented is an appeal
to authority,
All I was saying was that your arguments are well-known, have
been hashed out by judges, lawyers, academics and legislators, and
yours is not the majority view on the subject.
Which is why I said:
Have you written your Congressperson?
Do I need a note from mommy to discuss
this with you?
No, just the slightest beginning of a clue (and perhaps an
icebag on your hot head).
|
| |
| |
In article <3a256c50.0403030741.647341d1@posting.google.com>,
rpayne@mybluelight.com says...
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<404580c2$0$4887$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>...
No, **accusers**. You miss the point clean.
Did we? I thought that the basic idea behind our legal system was
something along the lines that it is better to let 100 guilty men go
free than to imprison one innocent man. Clearly you disagree. Would
you imprison 100 innocent men to get one guilty man in jail? Probably.
And in no other crime to we allow accusations
in secret, or protections for the accuser,
They are not victim protection rules, they are *accuser* protection
laws. There is a big difference.
who is not even on trial.
What does she need protections from?
So you can't tell me. No big shock here.
If you should ever find yourself in
Kobe's position, having committed
no rape,
I have no idea what you are talking about. I invented a hypothetical
situation so we could discuss it. You made no attempt to do so.
...the notion
that the accusers sexual history is always
irrelevant in a sex crime trial is so
monumentally stupid that one wonders what
genius thought it up.
Do I?
Virtually every woman in talk.rape says so, it's been said just
recently as a matter of fact. And this also seems to be the way judges
think.
No doubt you'd also prevent alibies from being presented to juries in
murder trials. Don't confuse the jury with evidence, eh?
Rape shield laws fail for both
presuming that the woman was raped,
Then why do you keep saying things like "The rules are intended to
protect victims"? Yes, rape shield laws assume that the woman is a
victim, this is a simple fact. And they do so in a criminal court,
which is a travesty of justice.
Is Kobe being tried in federal court? Long answer, no.
and for obstructing evidence that would call his guilt into question.
Both are wrong in a criminal court setting.
That's a fact.
Prove it then. Our judiciary is not, by and large, responsible to the
American people, except for a few lower level judges that are elected.
Most judges are appointed.
But what you have presented is an appeal to authority, which is a
fallacious argument that says nothing about the subject under
discussion, even if it's true.
Do I need a note from mommy to discuss this with you?
Rich
|
| |
| |
In article <3a256c50.0403030741.647341d1@posting.google.com>,
Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:
That some accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
Did we? I thought that the basic idea behind our legal system was
something along the lines that it is better to let 100 guilty men go
free than to imprison one innocent man. Clearly you disagree. Would
you imprison 100 innocent men to get one guilty man in jail? Probably.
A lot of people would, at least until they or someone they know is
the innocent one who gets punished.
But the biggest problem with the rape shield laws is that if immediate
sexual history is not allowed, it opens up a big potential loophole.
Consider this scenario:
A woman wants to get rich, and intentionally engages in rough sex
with some person. Now she goes and has consensual sex with some rich
person, then cries rape afterwards. What rape shield proponents argue is
essentially that even if the accused has proof that she'd had rough sex
with someone else just hours earlier, he could not use that as a defense.
In fact, to bar all prior sexual activity from a trial means that even if
the other guy came forward and admitted that he'd caused any bruising
etc., it should not be allowed. I would hope that rape shield laws
would account for such things.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I think it's a good bet that if there's a
loophole in the law, someone will try to exploit it for personal profit.
Clearly, a distinction needs to be made between an accuser's general
sexual history, and an accuser's IMMEDIATE sexual history, otherwise
the only recourse left is to videotape every encounter you have for
your own legal protection, because having the girl sign a release
form right before you start tends to spoil the mood.
Max
--
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<m_f1c.35803$0l1.8226@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
Protections for rape *accusers* you mean.
Very well stated, thank you.
Let this erase any doubt that td has no problem putting innocent men
in prison. This is the "benefit" Mr. Partay is talking about.
Probably tjab sees this as a 'benefit' as well.
Rich
td
|
| |
| |
On 3 Mar 2004 12:28:21 -0800, rpayne@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<m_f1c.35803$0l1.8226@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
You're not the first person to advocate
re-writing the evidence rules to take
away existing in-court protections for rape
victims.
Protections for rape *accusers* you mean.
No, I don't. You've missed the point.
The rules are intended to protect victims. That some
accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
Very well stated, thank you.
Let this erase any doubt that td has no problem putting innocent men
in prison. This is the "benefit" Mr. Partay is talking about.
Probably tjab sees this as a 'benefit' as well.
Rich
|
| |
| |
A woman wants to get rich, and
intentionally engages in rough sex
with some person....
How often do we think this might happen in real life?
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I think
it's a good bet that if there's a
loophole in the law, someone will
try to exploit it for personal profit.
Supposing for the sake of argument that that's true, we have
to ask what the likely balance is between this kind of situation
and the one on the other side of the coin -- where the accuser has
in fact been assaulted and the accused is in fact guilty. Then
the previous sexual history is not relevant, and its admission in
evidence may serve only to humiliate and shame the victim.
So given these two possibilities, which one is more likely,
and given that difference, which side of the evidence question
should we come down on?
The validity of argument by authority (which is not so black
and white as some people think) doesn't come into it when the
great majority of judges, lawyers, learned commentators and
legislators decide that the second scenario is -- as a *factual*
matter -- much more likely, and we have structured our rules
accordingly.
Clearly, a distinction needs to be
made between an accuser's general
sexual history, and an accuser's
IMMEDIATE sexual history,...
I don't think it's clear at all. The problem with such a
distinction is that you get into endless arguments about where to
draw the line between "general" and "recent" history. A
bright-line rule, while less conceptually pure, makes the whole
judicial process more efficient (which is legitimate thing to
weigh in the overall rule-making debate).
...otherwise the only recourse left is
to videotape every encounter you have for
your own legal protection, because having
the girl sign a release form right before
you start tends to spoil the mood.
You're assuming that there's more than an infinitesimal chance
of running into such a conniving female in your lifetime. I'm not
sure there is.
|
| |
| |
In article <c25ap9$2726$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu (Max Chuang) wrote:
A woman wants to get rich, and intentionally engages in rough sex
with some person. Now she goes and has consensual sex with some rich
person, then cries rape afterwards. What rape shield proponents argue is
essentially that even if the accused has proof that she'd had rough sex
What is "rough sex"? I always though it was a spanking :)
|
| |
| |
Rico X. Partay wrote:
You're assuming that there's more than an infinitesimal chance
of running into such a conniving female in your lifetime. I'm not
sure there is.
I'd submit that for the rich & famous, the odds
increase significantly.
Larry Coon
University of California
The NBA Salary Cap FAQ:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
|
| |
| |
On 3 Mar 2004 12:28:21 -0800, rpayne@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
snipped> >> >
No, I don't. You've missed the point.
The rules are intended to protect victims. That some
accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
Very well stated, thank you.
|
| |
| |
In article <40465864$0$4884$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
Rico X. Partay <billg@microsoft.com> wrote:
A woman wants to get rich, and
intentionally engages in rough sex
with some person....
How often do we think this might happen in real life?
Only has to happen once for it to be an unacceptable consequence.
Supposing for the sake of argument that that's true, we have
to ask what the likely balance is between this kind of situation
and the one on the other side of the coin -- where the accuser has
in fact been assaulted and the accused is in fact guilty.
No, we don't have to ask that, because our system places protecting
the innocent ABOVE punishing the guilty. Which means that your
particular interpretation of the rape shield law flies in the face
of the very basic foundation of our judicial system.
So given these two possibilities, which one is more likely,
and given that difference, which side of the evidence question
should we come down on?
Even if the ratio is 100,000 to 1, it's not acceptable, at least
not to me. It may be horrible to let a guilty man go, but it's
even more egregious to punish an innocent.
Clearly, a distinction needs to be
made between an accuser's general
sexual history, and an accuser's
IMMEDIATE sexual history,...
I don't think it's clear at all. The problem with such a
distinction is that you get into endless arguments about where to
draw the line between "general" and "recent" history. A
bright-line rule, while less conceptually pure, makes the whole
judicial process more efficient (which is legitimate thing to
weigh in the overall rule-making debate).
Not at all. Immediate sexual history can be simply defined as
anything recent enough to potentially taint any physical evidence
of rape. Efficiency is great, but not at the expense of justice.
To draw the line at ALL sexual history being off limits, you essentially
set it up so that there's an infallible way to entrap someone in a
rape accusation.
It's absolutely preposterous to argue that something that could
DIRECTLY impact the physical evidence of a rape should not be
allowed into a trial. It'd be like accusing someone of getting mud
on your carpet and suing them for damages, while saying it's irrelevant
that you'd had a mud wrestling match in your living room just before
your guest came over. It very well may be the case that you kept
things clean during the mud wrestling, and that your guest tracked
in the mud. But a simple, "after," photo doesn't prove anything,
and I think the mud wrestling match would be quite relevant. But
then again, aren't all mud wrestling matches relevant?
You're assuming that there's more than an infinitesimal chance
of running into such a conniving female in your lifetime. I'm not
sure there is.
Well, you're just a lot less cynical than I am, I guess. I've just
seen too many whackos try all sorts of sordid crap to be convinced
that no one would ever try something like that, especially since
people who agree with you would essentially give the accuser near
100% chance of success in their endeavor. For chrissakes, there's been
people who intentionally put their own infants behind a celebrity's
car to try and generate a lawsuit, do you really think no one would
ever try to falsely nail someone for rape just to make a profit?
If people were as honest and honorable as you seem to suggest, we'd
never have any crimes to begin with.
Max
--
|
| |
| |
..our system places protecting
the innocent ABOVE punishing the guilty.
Which is exactly how the evidence rules view the rape
victim -- as an innocent who has already suffered enough. If you
don't think that's an accurate description, go talk to a few.
Which means that your particular
interpretation of the rape shield
law flies in the face of the very
basic foundation of our judicial system.
Putting aside the question of what actually constitutes "the
very basic foundation of our judicial system," calling it "your
particular interpretation" is disingenuous. The laws are what
they are. I didn't make them. I'm just trying to get you to
understand how they came to be. Forgive me for repeating myself,
but "my particular interpretation" is actually the interpretation
of the great majority of those who have examined the issue, fwiw.
Even if the ratio is 100,000 to 1,
it's not acceptable, at least
not to me. It may be horrible to
let a guilty man go, but it's
even more egregious to punish an innocent.
Which is exactly how the evidence rules view what used to
happen to the rape victim -- she was punished twice, the second
time in court.
Regardless, it's not an either/or situation. We're dealing
with many, many alleged crimes and trying to make consistent rules
that appropriately cover as many of them as possible.
It's absolutely preposterous to argue
that something that could DIRECTLY impact
the physical evidence of a rape should not
be allowed into a trial. It'd be like
accusing someone of getting mud on your
carpet and suing them for damages, while
saying it's irrelevant that you'd had a
mud wrestling match in your living room
just before your guest came over.
Actually, it's like saying it's irrelevant that when I visited
a foreign country last year (or last month or last week) I went
hiking in an area that has muddy trails sometimes, though maybe
not when I was there. It might be the tiniest bit relevant if we
really stretch our collective imagination, but a judge might
decide that the fact that I made such a trip is more likely to
confuse the jury than it is to tend to decide anything relevant to
the case (and he has the discretion therefore to keep it out).
...a simple, "after," photo doesn't
prove anything...
It proves the carpet was muddy.
...aren't all mud wrestling matches relevant?
Not by a long shot. What about the one that happened next
door? On the next block? In the next town? The next state?
...do you really think no one would
ever try to falsely nail someone for
rape just to make a profit?
No one ever said "no one would ever" but you. You seem to
envision black and white worlds where people are either completely
evil or completely pure. Neither exists. The only question is,
How much of each do we have and how do we therefore configure our
laws to best deal with it?
If people were as honest and honorable
as you seem to suggest, we'd
never have any crimes to begin with.
There's a huge difference between an ideal world where no ever
commits a crime and the world we actually live in, which happens
to be one where most people have more sympathy for an alleged rape
victim than for an alleged rapist. Your mileage, clearly, may
vary.
(Now I really gotta go read my Wills & Trusts. Talk amongst
yourselves about who's "of sound mind" and why it should matter.
I say let the crazy son of a #@&@
give his money to whomever he
wants. Or says he wants.)
|
| |
| |
n article <404685a0$0$4885$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
Rico X. Partay <billg@microsoft.com> wrote:
..our system places protecting
the innocent ABOVE punishing the guilty.
Which is exactly how the evidence rules view the rape
victim -- as an innocent who has already suffered enough. If you
don't think that's an accurate description, go talk to a few.
Except you've already presumed guilt. You do it every time you
call her a victim, and assume she's already suffered through a
rape.
Putting aside the question of what actually constitutes "the
very basic foundation of our judicial system," calling it "your
particular interpretation" is disingenuous. The laws are what
they are. I didn't make them. I'm just trying to get you to
understand how they came to be. Forgive me for repeating myself,
but "my particular interpretation" is actually the interpretation
of the great majority of those who have examined the issue, fwiw.
I would hope that the great majority of those who understand law
would realize that presumption of innocence applies to the accused,
as opposed to you who apply it to the accuser. You'd have fit in
great in Salem.
Even if the ratio is 100,000 to 1,
it's not acceptable, at least
not to me. It may be horrible to
let a guilty man go, but it's
even more egregious to punish an innocent.
Which is exactly how the evidence rules view what used to
happen to the rape victim -- she was punished twice, the second
time in court.
Again, with the presumption of guilt for the accused. I understand
wanting to protect the accusers, but you can't seek the truth if
you're going to cover up things that might have a direct impact
on the evidence. At least not without it being a farce.
Regardless, it's not an either/or situation. We're dealing
with many, many alleged crimes and trying to make consistent rules
that appropriately cover as many of them as possible.
Yes, but apparently you completely disregard the part about, "Innocent
until proven guilty."
It's absolutely preposterous to argue
that something that could DIRECTLY impact
the physical evidence of a rape should not
be allowed into a trial. It'd be like
accusing someone of getting mud on your
carpet and suing them for damages, while
saying it's irrelevant that you'd had a
mud wrestling match in your living room
just before your guest came over.
Actually, it's like saying it's irrelevant that when I visited
a foreign country last year (or last month or last week) I went
hiking in an area that has muddy trails sometimes, though maybe
not when I was there. It might be the tiniest bit relevant if we
really stretch our collective imagination, but a judge might
decide that the fact that I made such a trip is more likely to
confuse the jury than it is to tend to decide anything relevant to
the case (and he has the discretion therefore to keep it out).
No, because if in fact she did have sex within a short period of
the alleged rape, it would directly taint the evidence. Your going
hiking a year ago is quite a bit different; it's more analogous to
her having rough sex months before the alleged incident with Kobe.
That wouldn't be very relevant, but something that happens within
a day or two of the incident would, seeing as how those encounters
could have caused the bruising or vaginal tears as well.
Hey, it sucks if she was raped yet the evidence was tainted by
other sexual encounters. But not all crimes are provable, and we
can't relax our standards just to nail a few would-be guilty criminals.
...a simple, "after," photo doesn't
prove anything...
It proves the carpet was muddy.
Yes, but it doesn't prove who did it. And if there were other people
who could have tracked the mud in at around the same time you accused
someone else of having done it, are we supposed to take it on your
word that the others didn't do it? You going hiking a year ago is
one thing, but if you had a bunch of muddy people in the same room
the day before, that is pretty relevant as to proving whether or not
your one subsequent guest caused the carpet to get muddy. Now, if you
had a picture of after the mud-wrestling match showing a spotless
room, that's one thing, but if you don't then you're gonna have a hard
time proving your case. Unless of course you simply pick and choose
what information is presented, in which case you can slant things in
your favor. But then don't try calling it fair.
...aren't all mud wrestling matches relevant?
Not by a long shot. What about the one that happened next
door? On the next block? In the next town? The next state?
Boy, that one flew right over your head.
...do you really think no one would
ever try to falsely nail someone for
rape just to make a profit?
No one ever said "no one would ever" but you. You seem to
envision black and white worlds where people are either completely
evil or completely pure. Neither exists.
Hardly. Completely evil would mean that I would assume everyone would
do something like that, which I have not. You, OTOH, either assume
nobody would, or you don't mind that the occasional innocent gets
caught in the virtually inescapable trap I described. So either you're
naive, or you don't really believe that it's more important to avoid
wrongful convictions than it is to get all the bad guys (in which
case you might find the Chinese legal system more to your liking).
The only question is,
How much of each do we have and how do we therefore configure our
laws to best deal with it?
The way you suggest we configure it (that nothing outside of the
sexual encounter in question is relevant) sets it up so that it's
nearly impossible to register a defense. If that's your idea
of dealing with it in the best manner, then there's not much to
say.
If people were as honest and honorable
as you seem to suggest, we'd
never have any crimes to begin with.
There's a huge difference between an ideal world where no ever
commits a crime and the world we actually live in, which happens
to be one where most people have more sympathy for an alleged rape
victim than for an alleged rapist. Your mileage, clearly, may
vary.
I'm not talking about sympathy. I'm talking about fairness. How
can it be fair when you set it up so that one side can't muster
a defense? If in fact someone else could have caused the bruising
and such, how can that possibly not be relevant?
You can have more sympathy for the alleged victim, but that doesn't
mean you should tilt the scales in the victim's favor during a trial.
I feel bad for alleged victims in any crime, but that doesn't mean
that you throw out things that might influence the validity of
the physical evidence.
Max
--
|
| |
| |
In article <404685a0$0$4885$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote:
Which is exactly how the evidence rules view the rape
victim -- as an innocent who has already suffered enough. If you
don't think that's an accurate description, go talk to a few.
And now we see what a bigot the anonymous person is. You cant say the
*ALLEGED* victim has already suffered enough, you do not even know if
she was the victim of a crime.
|
| |
| |
..our system places protecting
the innocent ABOVE punishing the guilty.
Which is exactly how the evidence rules
view the rape victim -- as an innocent
who has already suffered enough. If you
don't think that's an accurate description,
go talk to a few.
You cant say the
*ALLEGED* victim has already suffered
enough, you do not even know if
she was the victim of a crime.
<Sigh.> You guys need to read more carefully. One last time:
The whole discussion is predicated on this fact: There are
some alleged rapists who are in fact guilty. The victims in those
cases are victims; there's nothing alleged about it; they have in
fact suffered. Keeping in mind that this doesn't cover every
accusation, that there are false accusations, we still want to
make sure we do the right thing in the situation when the victim
has in fact been assaulted, even though we acknowledge that doing
so may create a disadvantage for the falsely accused.
Now: Factoring in what we think we know about the relative
percentages -- how often the accusation is true, how often not --
i.e. with ALL our best information, theories, guesses, etc., AND
what we know with certainty about what happens to an accuser who
is subject in court to a dissecting of her life and examination on
subjects which may only be peripherally related to the crime (not
"alleged" crime, remember; I realize we're in a new paragraph
here, but we're still talking about those cases where the accused
is in fact guilty) we have agreed as a society how to proceed in
ALL cases (*now* we've lifted the restriction), no matter how much
you don't like it.
Now: Given all that, we can just rant and rave and say the
whole thing is crazy, or we can acknowledge that there are
arguments on both side of the issue that might make sense and try
to address them like grownups.
P.S. Calling people names instead of trying to argue the validity
of your ideas doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like
a putz.
|
| |
| |
In article <4046b225$0$4902$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
billg@microsoft.com says...
..our system places protecting
the innocent ABOVE punishing the guilty.
Which is exactly how the evidence rules
view the rape victim -- as an innocent
who has already suffered enough. If you
don't think that's an accurate description,
go talk to a few.
No..they view her as an alleged rape victim.
<Sigh.> You guys need to read more carefully.
No we don't.
One last time:
The whole discussion is predicated on this fact: There are
some alleged rapists who are in fact guilty. The victims in those
cases are victims; there's nothing alleged about it;
Yep..but that is after the trial. You want the alleged victim to have
protections during the trial when she is still the alleged victim.
they have in
fact suffered. Keeping in mind that this doesn't cover every
accusation, that there are false accusations, we still want to
make sure we do the right thing in the situation when the victim
has in fact been assaulted, even though we acknowledge that doing
so may create a disadvantage for the falsely accused.
But until the trial is over she is not a victim..only an alleged one.
Now: Factoring in what we think we know about the relative
percentages -- how often the accusation is true, how often not --
i.e. with ALL our best information, theories, guesses, etc., AND
what we know with certainty about what happens to an accuser who
is subject in court to a dissecting of her life and examination on
subjects which may only be peripherally related to the crime (not
"alleged" crime, remember; I realize we're in a new paragraph
here, but we're still talking about those cases where the accused
is in fact guilty) we have agreed as a society how to proceed in
ALL cases (*now* we've lifted the restriction), no matter how much
you don't like it.
But you cannot protect the alleged victim. After he is found guilty
and she is LEGALLY a victim we can talk.
Now: Given all that, we can just rant and rave and say the
whole thing is crazy, or we can acknowledge that there are
arguments on both side of the issue that might make sense and try
to address them like grownups.
Get rid of the rape shield law...simple really.
P.S. Calling people names instead of trying to argue the validity
of your ideas doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like
a putz.
Gee...PKB.
|
| |
| |
In article <MPG.1ab24c3e42f54a45989686@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>,
Sky KIng <laughing@home.net> wrote:
In article <4046b225$0$4902$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
billg@microsoft.com says...
One last time:
Yep..but that is after the trial. You want the alleged victim to have
protections during the trial when she is still the alleged victim.
Nope. Even before the trial, if she was raped, she is already a victim.
No amount of Alice-in-Wonderland thinking on your part can change that.
But if your mother or sister or wife or daughter is ever raped, tell
her to shut up and quit whining because she wasn't really raped until
there has been a conviction. Then tell me how good you feel about yourself.
|
| |
| |
With due respect, td, you disappointed me when you recently suggested that
someone who underpays (or who refuses to pay) a prostitute is guilty of
"rape". Of course, I don't defend the practice. But, surely you must
recognize the difference between being a lowlife bastard cheapskate who
renegs on a voluntary agreement, and the far more horrible situation where a
woman is sexually assaulted. I'm sorry to say that your credibility
suiffered with that assertion. I'll continue to read your posts, but I'll
never again take seriously anything you say about "rape", knowing that, to
you, this term includes a haggling technique used by underpaid prostitutes
who bargain to have consensual sex.
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Uwu1c.29552$Tn.14031@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
snipped> >> >
No, I don't. You've missed the point.
The rules are intended to protect victims. That some
accusers
who aren't actually victims might benefit is an incidental price
we agree to pay in order to protect the real victims.
Very well stated, thank you.
Let this erase any doubt that td has no problem putting innocent men
in prison. This is the "benefit" Mr. Partay is talking about.
Probably tjab sees this as a 'benefit' as well.
Rich
td
Rich is one of those people who thinks women are never raped it seems.
Is that so?
Perhaps you could post some text where I've said this then?
Rich
td
|
| |
| |
With due respect, td, you disappointed me when you recently suggested that
someone who underpays (or who refuses to pay) a prostitute is guilty of
"rape". Of course, I don't defend the practice. But, surely you must
recognize the difference between being a lowlife bastard cheapskate who
renegs on a voluntary agreement, and the far more horrible situation where
< | | |
