Every now and then I read infuriating news. In fact, I subject myself to masochistic things like watching Fox News every now and again to not loose track of "the other side
( Read more... )
stuff like this infuriates me. as though a woman's sexual past has ANYTHING to do with a present-day rape. no matter how many times she's said "yes" before, if she says "no" this time and you keep going, THAT'S RAPE. end of story.
about when the nj state supreme court decided they'd allow a woman's sexual past to be considered in rape cases. and three of the state supreme court judges are women, no less. what the HELL??? anyway the the url I had it linked to is expired now, but if you're unfamiliar with the story and are interested I could probably dig up some more information for you.
And a disturbing little blurb about it taken from a survey question on the subject: "New Jersey has rewritten its rape-shield law. Jurors may now hear details of a woman's sexual past involving the man on trial for assaulting her. The new policy applies to past flirting and advances between the accused and the accuser; but still does not allow for testimony about the accuser's prior sexual conduct with others. "
Is that nauseating or what? Flirting = invitation to rape? Ugh. It's disgusting, that as human beings we can't seem to get beyond the medieval "she must have asked for it" paradigm. Why is no not enough? Now we have to JUSTIFY no? What is that about?!
In the interest of being fair, I can see how they (the legal system) would want to hear both sides to make sure the alledged victim isn't lying. (God knows why, but surely some people do.)
In a 5-1 ruling issued July 24, the New Jersey justices said defendants in sexual assault cases have a constitutional right to present evidence to support a defense that may include examples of prior contact with the victim.
Unfortunately, it's too easy to abuse this from either side. The defendant could lie and say the victim "gave me blowjobs all the time!" How do you prove this?
The ruling applies to past flirting or advances toward the person accused of rape, and does not allow for testimony about the accuser's prior sexual conduct with others.
At least, unlike the Italian case, they're not considering other people here, so facts like number of partners are irrelevant.
Comments 7
there's an entry from my old journal here:
http://bothsidesnow.livejournal.com/351313.html
about when the nj state supreme court decided they'd allow a woman's sexual past to be considered in rape cases. and three of the state supreme court judges are women, no less. what the HELL??? anyway the the url I had it linked to is expired now, but if you're unfamiliar with the story and are interested I could probably dig up some more information for you.
Reply
Scary to consider that's also happening here. I'd appreciate more info on that if it's not too much trouble.
Reply
And a disturbing little blurb about it taken from a survey question on the subject:
"New Jersey has rewritten its rape-shield law. Jurors may now hear details of a woman's sexual past involving the man on trial for assaulting her. The new policy applies to past flirting and advances between the accused and the accuser; but still does not allow for testimony about the accuser's prior sexual conduct with others. "
Is that nauseating or what? Flirting = invitation to rape? Ugh. It's disgusting, that as human beings we can't seem to get beyond the medieval "she must have asked for it" paradigm. Why is no not enough? Now we have to JUSTIFY no? What is that about?!
Reply
In a 5-1 ruling issued July 24, the New Jersey justices said defendants in sexual assault cases have a constitutional right to present evidence to support a defense that may include examples of prior contact with the victim.
Unfortunately, it's too easy to abuse this from either side. The defendant could lie and say the victim "gave me blowjobs all the time!" How do you prove this?
The ruling applies to past flirting or advances toward the person accused of rape, and does not allow for testimony about the accuser's prior sexual conduct with others.
At least, unlike the Italian case, they're not considering other people here, so facts like number of partners are irrelevant.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment