Rape definition changed in Maryland.

[Trinitis]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/crime/bal-te.md.rape17apr17,0,5827288,full.story



The state's highest court ruled yesterday that a man can be charged with rape if he ignores a woman's calls to stop - even if she had previously consented to sex.

With this expansion of the legal definition of rape, Maryland joins seven other states whose courts have determined that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins.

"This goes to the heart of women's autonomy," said Lisae C. Jordan, legal director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a brief in the matter. "It says that, yes, women do have the right to make decisions about something as intimate as sexual intercourse."

The Maryland Court of Appeals' opinion in a rape case from Montgomery County overturns what defense attorneys and a lower appeals court said was existing common law and the high court's own 1980 opinion.

All seven judges agreed that a woman has the right to revoke consent, but reached that conclusion in different ways. Yesterday's ruling returns the 2004 rape case of Maouloud Baby to Montgomery County for a new trial.

Baby's case drew the attention of the state's highest court - and of national and state women's groups - when the Maryland Court of Special Appeals overturned his convictions for first-degree rape and other sex offenses in October 2006.

The case stems from a December 2003 incident in which he and a friend, both high school students, had sex with a community college student in an isolated school parking lot.

Baby, then 16, and Michael Wilson, 15, groped the woman and made sexual advances to her, according to police. First, Wilson had sex with the woman while Baby was outside the car. Then, police said, Baby told her it was his turn.

"[So] are you going to let me hit it?" he said, according to police. "I don't want to rape you."

The victim testified in Montgomery County court that she agreed to sex "as long as he stops when I tell him to." As he began, she told him to stop because he was hurting her, but he kept going for five or 10 seconds, she said.

Wilson pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Baby denied any wrongdoing but was convicted of first-degree rape and other crimes and sentenced to 15 years in prison, with all but five suspended.

Mel Feit, director of the National Center for Men, based in Long Island, N.Y., said the facts of Baby's case have been lost in the larger argument about a woman's right to say no.

"The courts got it wrong then, and they are getting it wrong now," said Feit, who has followed the Maryland case. "There is no way that anyone is ever going to convince me that a five-second delay is first-degree rape."

He said that he, too, believes that a woman should be able to withdraw consent during sex. But he said the evidence showed that Baby did comply with the victim's demand to stop and that the jury in the case "threw common sense out the window" when they convicted him.

"This is a dangerous ruling," he said. "What the court is saying is that every act of sexual intercourse in Maryland is potentially a rape, and if a man doesn't stop on a dime, he's going to jail."

Sexual E-brake ftw?

[Gan]

wow

wow about the charges, wow about the verdict, and wow about the ruling.

and LOL @ "are you going to let me hit it?"

[Sean of the Thread]

Just wow.

My wife tells me to stop I donkey punch her and problem solved.


But seriously... just wow. And how the fuck can you prove that other than stupid admission that you continued 5 seconds after she said stop.

And does stopping immediately and jerking it to avoid blue balls count as well?


Some of these stories amaze me... the only thing that might amaze me more at this point is if we start to use Ted Kennedy fat for some sort of hybrid fuel.

[Arkans]

Luckily, this news story does have photos:

This can obviously be attributed to videogames. Here is what is suspected in being partially responsible for the five second delay:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/Guderian129/l_4cb50ba6557631ddfd5215e646e3bef3.jpg

Now, exibit B shows the first man having sex with the woman. This obviously turned the other party on:


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/Guderian129/ScorpionSex.gif

Now, the second party is turned on and says, "You gonna let me hit it?" followed by:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/Guderian129/Fuck%20Pictures%20that%20mess%20with%20people/me.jpg

This has been another Arkans production!

- Arkans

[g++]

Well as a resident of baltimore Im glad our legislators are focusing on important issues. Exuse me Im going to go fire a gun in the air for a half hour and not be arrested.

[Some Rogue]

Well, the stopping the second she says something is a bit much, but this part


"[So] are you going to let me hit it?" he said, according to police. "I don't want to rape you."


pretty much shows his intent anyway. He was an idiot.

[TheEschaton]

Intent (of the rapist) is not highly weighted in rape cases. It's all about consent, and whether it was given, and if so, whether it was maintained. Intent may be the difference between the different degrees of rape, but doesn't speak to whether it's actually rape or not.

[Some Rogue]

Let me fuck you or I will kill you.
Ok, go ahead.

Perfectly ok when she says yes??

[diethx]

He was an idiot.

Bingo.

[Nieninque]

Let me fuck you or I will kill you.
Ok, go ahead.

Perfectly ok when she says yes??

Please don't try and argue the law with the E.

He is a law student, dontcha know?

Fucking stupid...but a law student, just the same.

[TheEschaton]

Let me fuck you or I will kill you.
Ok, go ahead.

Perfectly ok when she says yes??

That's not consent. Not legally, at least.

-TheE-

P.S. Just cause I EMailed you instead of the Emma I needed to EMail, Nein, doesn't make me stupid, it merely means I'm busy and I typed in "Emma" and you were the first one which popped up. Cunt. :lol:

[g++]

legal consent cant be coerced ftw

[Some Rogue]

legal consent cant be coerced ftw

That's pretty much my point...him telling her he was gonna rape her if she didn't say yes seems like coercion to me.

[Nieninque]

That's not consent. Not legally, at least.

-TheE-

P.S. Just cause I EMailed you instead of the Emma I needed to EMail, Nein, doesn't make me stupid, it merely means I'm busy and I typed in "Emma" and you were the first one which popped up. Cunt. :lol:

Correct...it's posting the stupid shit you post, and the stupid shit you believe that makes you stupid.

[Gan]

And does stopping immediately and jerking it to avoid blue balls count as well?
I guess she could have gone for assault if you hit her with a chin omlet from said jerking.


Please don't try and argue the law with the E.

He is a law student, dontcha know?

Fucking stupid...but a law student, just the same.

:rofl:

[Khariz]

/shrug

E's right. In this thread anyway.

[Clove]

Crap. There go all my ho's in Baltimore.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'll make sure to do this the next time I get ambushed with a blowjob. The trauma of coming in the girly's mouth has caused me all sorts of psychological pain. I was like "Stop. I want to do it on your tits." But no.

Also, :wtf: is up with cocksmear not being charged like a fucking minor? There's dumb, but then there's stupid. Stanley stupid.

My whole post is cacaball shit.

[ElanthianSiren]

What we need are cameras everywhere to make absolutely sure it's not rape.

-Categorized and screened satellite feeds to be reviewed regularly for "consent confirmation."

[Stanley Burrell]

What we need are cameras everywhere to make absolutely sure it's not rape.

-Categorized and screened satellite feeds to be reviewed regularly for "consent confirmation."

Kinky.

[Sean of the Thread]

Does the things I do to my wife whilst she is passed out sleeping count as rape?

[Stanley Burrell]

Does the things I do to my wife whilst she is passed out sleeping count as rape?

Honestly. Everything these days is rape. Like, I just raped you. My bad.

[Stanley Burrell]

And maybe more seriously, if the general public is aware of how tangential "rape" is becoming, chances are that in a courtroom, someone who has done the dirty deed and needs to have dual castration won't. I think the over-diagnosing of rape is starting to reverse its criminal persecution/effectively removing rapists from society at the real world level.

[Stanley Burrell]

Just remember Carl,

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/160/2812175.png

[Ilvane]

Believe it or not, it's pretty hard to prove rape, so I also find it hard to believe that this would be getting innocent men(or women) convicted of rape if it wasn't really rape.

Angela

[Keller]

Sex party at Ilvane's!

[Clove]

Believe it or not, it's pretty hard to prove rape, so I also find it hard to believe that this would be getting innocent men(or women) convicted of rape if it wasn't really rape.

AngelaYeah but then again you believe Hillary has experience.

[Ilvane]

My sister went through a trial for one, so..I might actually know something about it. The defense for the guy who my sister was raped by said it was her fault for getting into the car with him, it was leading him on into thinking she wanted sex.

Proving rape is not as easy as it seems, women actually get blamed for it more often than you think as well. I as seriously proud of my sister for going through the prosecution, but this kid got away with it, even though he had a prior attempted sexual assault on his record.

:shrug:

Angela

[diethx]

The defense for the guy who my sister was raped by said it was her fault for getting into the car with him, it was leading him on into thinking she wanted sex.

Did this happen in 1972?

[Ilvane]

Nope, three years ago. Amazing isn't it?

[Clove]

Nope, three years ago. Amazing isn't it?I should explain something first. Ilvane lives in Massachusetts. Oh yeah, and wow, you experienced a rape trial.

[Sean of the Thread]

Rofl @ MASS and fat fuck Kennedy.

[Keller]

My sister went through a trial for one, so..I might actually know something about it. The defense for the guy who my sister was raped by said it was her fault for getting into the car with him, it was leading him on into thinking she wanted sex.

Proving rape is not as easy as it seems, women actually get blamed for it more often than you think as well. I as seriously proud of my sister for going through the prosecution, but this kid got away with it, even though he had a prior attempted sexual assault on his record.

:shrug:

Angela


Is your sister a street walker? I don't understand.

What jury accepts, "She got into the car -- that was leading him on" as a reasonable defense.

I know it is a social faux-paux to question the sincerity of someone's story with regard to rape, but I don't believe you.

[diethx]

What jury accepts, "She got into the car -- that was leading him on" as a reasonable defense.

Exactly what I was wondering... and based upon the given info, I don't believe her either.

[Ilvane]

Yeah, should have known you guys would denigrate the situation into something like "was my sister a streetwalker".


My sister was offerred a ride home from a guy, she had a friend who was supposed to drive her home, but had been drinking, and she had rode with this girl. She had met this guy once before the party, so she said okay. While she was in the car, he pushed himself on her. She said no, he didn't stop, end of story.

And that was the story she told in court.

They asked her what she was wearing at trial, they asked her if she had led him on(this was the defense lawyer scumbag).

I was there in court, and that bastard..let me tell you, I would have smacked the lawyer if I could have.

Having volunteered in a rape crisis center, it happens more often then you think too. People don't always prosecute, for fear of the same kind of things.

Angela

P.S. I don't realy give a shit if you believe me, but it's what happened.

[CrystalTears]

My sister went through a trial for one, so..I might actually know something about it. The defense for the guy who my sister was raped by said it was her fault for getting into the car with him, it was leading him on into thinking she wanted sex.
Was it right for him to force himself on her? No. Was it her fault for getting in the car of someone she barely knew? Yes. Do I consider one cancelling the other out for sheer stupidity? Unfortunately.

At that point it's proving his word against hers. She went willingly, he tried something, she said no, he continued. They were both wrong. They both fucked up. They should just live with that decision on their own separate terms.


Proving rape is not as easy as it seems, women actually get blamed for it more often than you think as well. Probably because of dumb bitches who say yes, then don't like how the sex is going, then say no, and now suddenly the guy is a rapist. No, she was a fucking opportunist and it wasn't going as planned. Well too fucking bad. Just because you didn't like the dick doesn't mean the fucking guy has to suffer for the rest of his fucking life because some twat has a bug up her chooch.

Sorry, I have serious issues with the current rape laws. Serious issues.


Yeah, should have known you guys would denigrate the situation into something like "was my sister a streetwalker".
Because you live in MA. Nuff said. :tongue:


They asked her what she was wearing at trial, they asked her if she had led him on(this was the defense lawyer scumbag).

I was there in court, and that bastard..let me tell you, I would have smacked the lawyer if I could have. Of course the defense lawyer asked that. He needed to find out what kind of intentions she was exhibiting at the time. Dressing like a slut would somewhat validate that. Does it mean it was okay for him to try to screw her? No. Would anyone be surprised if she looked like a dime store hooker? Nope.


Having volunteered in a rape crisis center, it happens more often then you think too. People don't always prosecute, for fear of the same kind of things.

Angela

P.S. I don't realy give a shit if you believe me, but it's what happened.
Great, another sudden expert on a subject. How shocking. If you didn't really care about anyone believing you, you wouldn't keep mentioning and defending it.

Don't you have a party to plan for your boy McCain? Get going. Shoo. /dismiss

[diethx]

If you didn't really care about anyone believing you, you wouldn't keep mentioning and defending it.

QFT

[Celephais]

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/treatment/carl-2-athf.jpg
"You know, I used to think rape was funny..."

[Keller]

The questions you cited are squarely against the rules of evidence. Did the prosecutor object?

[Ilvane]

CT, I never said I was an expert on the court side of rape. Personally I've been throught it myself, but I didn't go forward with charges, because I was too afraid to. I volunteered at a rape crisis center instead. Went through training, learned how to help people that were going through it.

My thoughts, someone says no, it means no.

Rape is not funny.

Edited to add a response to Keller: Yes, they did object. However, it is said out loud, and regardless of the objection it was put out there.

Angela

[Celephais]

Personally I've been throught it myself, but I didn't go forward with charges
Noted.

Rape is not funny.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c267/suzannesolheim/myspace%20various/dustygozongas32.jpg
Ho-ho! You hear what I ordered? I'm gonna be farting blood!

[CrystalTears]

CT, I never said I was an expert on the court side of rape.
Then don't use it as leverage for OMG THAT'S WHY I KNOW. There's no other reason to mention it other to give yourself more importance. Watch out for snipers.


My thoughts, someone says no, it means no. My thoughts, not every mention of no means no. Every situation is different and should be evaluated individually.


Rape is not funny. You're right, it's very much not, and it pisses me off that several women have used it for situations where it wasn't, and have ruined lives over their own wrong judgements and stupidities.

BTW, I'm pretty sure you're leaving a WHOLE SHITLOAD of information out from both sides of that case, so I'm just going to join the flanks and call this BS as well.

[Ilvane]

I agree that women who cry rape who weren't really raped are awful.

I would pretty much say that most women who claim it aren't lying. You may have a small percentage that say they have been to get money, or leverage.

And tell me something? Why would my sister put herself through the trial if she wasn't telling the truth?

What is wrong with you people?

Angela

[ElanthianSiren]

It could have happened as Ilvane said if her sister didn't get help soon enough. I believe it happens rather often that women don't report the rape soon enough or wash before they do, so the physical evidence of the crime is gone.

That definitely would turn it into word v word.

-M

ps. if some guy tries to rape you, suddenly act interested, then yank his two buddies ball weight style with a-vengence and move alone. Crit chance: 95%

[Celephais]

It's a fundamental problem that we face as a species, it's impossible to prove intent/consent, erring on the side of caution is obviously the only safe path, but people choose not to on occasion, the issue is that there isn't a proper scale or even a way to properly scale it. I think predator rapists are the lowest form of life on this planet, and deserve far worse punishment than they get, but often our legal system fails to properly seperate them from ... not sure how to word it... "accidental rapists"?

There was a YouTube skit or something about concent forms or something... it was a stupid skit but it had a good point, and now according to Maryland, even if you have concent in noterized writing, that might not be enough if they change their mind.

There isn't a solution, it is a topic of valid emotional weight, reality: know your partner (from the male perspective), stay in good company (from female perspective).... that's the best we can do.

[Celephais]

ps. if some guy tries to rape you, suddenly act interested, then yank his two buddies ball weight style with a-vengence and move alone. Crit chance: 95%
[Roll result: 174 (open d100: 23) Penalties: 27]
You kick at a lowlife's groin and connect! The lowlife winces in agony!
...19 damage!
Roundtime: 5 sec.

[CrystalTears]

I agree that women who cry rape who weren't really raped are awful.

I would pretty much say that most women who claim it aren't lying. You may have a small percentage that say they have been to get money, or leverage.

And tell me something? Why would my sister put herself through the trial if she wasn't telling the truth?
I'm not saying your sister wasn't taken advantage of. I just don't think it needs to be branded as rape. I think that case should have been thrown out for lack of evidence, unless there were witnesses.

And as much as I'm sure women want "revenge", I believe, in my opinion, that several women have worn out and ruined it for the truly raped women because of the cry wolf factor.


What is wrong with you people?
I thought you didn't care what we thought.

[Ilvane]

It was most certainly rape, since she never agreed to it. She GOT INTO THE CAR WITH HIM. Was that consent for him to force himself on her? She never said it was okay for him to do that.

My god, seriously.

Angela

[ElanthianSiren]

The problem is that more often than not people who commit pathological crimes (like serial killers, rapists etc) seem normal to their non-victims. They're actors playing a role. Nobody would have guessed the guy that stabbed three of my friends to death would kill anyone or rape anyone. He was an eagle scout, quiet, and and a very polite guy.

In fact, he had hoodwinked one girl's mom to the point that she was convinced he was the only "good" one of her daughter's friends, and she only let him attend the funeral of all the people who had asked. He even fooled the cops who interviewed him (we never have figured out how he did that). Kind of crazy, no? Normal psychology just doesn't apply to these type of people.

[CrystalTears]

It was most certainly rape, since she never agreed to it. She GOT INTO THE CAR WITH HIM. Was that consent for him to force himself on her? She never said it was okay for him to do that.

My god, seriously.

Angela
I never said it was okay to force himself on her. I didn't say she deserved it. I didn't say that he wasn't wrong. I'm saying SHE'S A FUCKING MORON FOR GETTING IN THE CAR OF SOMEONE SHE DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW.

[Trinitis]

I think the main thing in that story that caused me to post it was the "5 to 10 seconds" thing.

This kids life is basicly ruined..just because he did something all 15 year old want..and it was offered too him, and then she said "stop" and he did not stop for 10 seconds.

If you don't want it, don't say yes.

[Some Rogue]

Rape is not funny.


It can be, just ask Mr. Carlin


Comedians run into that shit all the time. Like rape. They'll say, "you can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny." I say, "fuck you, I think it's hilarious.

How do you like that?" I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See, hey why do you think they call him "Porky," eh? I know what you're going to say. "Elmer was asking for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky. Porky couldn't help himself, he got a hard- on, he got horney, he lost control, he went out of his mind."

I believe you can joke about anything. It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is. Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.

Give you an example. Did you ever see a news story like this in the paper? Every now and then you run into a story, says, "some guy broke into a house, stole a lot of things, and while he was in there, he raped an 81 year old woman."

And I'm thinking to myself, "WHY??? What the fuck kind of a social life does this guy have?" I want to say, "why did you do that?"

"Well she was coming on to me. We were dancing and I got horny. Hey, she was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe."

I'll say, "Jesus Christ, be a little fucking selective next time will you?"

[ElanthianSiren]

:lol: That routine is awesome.

[Ilvane]

I never said it was okay to force himself on her. I didn't say she deserved it. I didn't say that he wasn't wrong. I'm saying SHE'S A FUCKING MORON FOR GETTING IN THE CAR OF SOMEONE SHE DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW.

As I had said, she had met him once before the party.

Or did you miss that part? :P

Angela

[Celephais]

I met this bum on the street once, told me his name, how he needed bus fair... if I ever see him again I'm going to ask him for a ride.

[Ilvane]

Okay, whatever..if some of you people believe taking a ride from someone who you've met before constitutes consent to being raped..then there's not much hope in convicing otherwise.

[CrystalTears]

Okay, whatever..if some of you people believe taking a ride from someone who you've met before constitutes consent to being raped..then there's not much hope in convicing otherwise.
My god you're stupid and have the reading comprehension of a gnat. When did I ever say that her going in the car was consent to sex? Never! What I said was that she was wrong from the beginning to take a ride from someone she barely knew.

She met him once in a party. Oh so that makes him her best friend? Maybe you drive around with people you met once and feel confident they won't jump your bones, but most rational, common sense people don't do that these days.

Again, why do you continue to defend your position if you don't care how we feel about it? I'm sorry that you sister got raped, it totally sucks. Maybe next time she'll think twice about jumping into someone's car that she doesn't really know.

[Nieninque]

Was it right for him to force himself on her? No. Was it her fault for getting in the car of someone she barely knew? Yes. Do I consider one cancelling the other out for sheer stupidity? Unfortunately.

That's a pretty ridiculous point of view. The fault of rape is always on the rapist. Was it stupid of her to get into the car? Yes...undoubtedly. Was her subsequent rape then her fault? No. It was the fault of the perpetrator. Always.


Probably because of dumb bitches who say yes, then don't like how the sex is going, then say no, and now suddenly the guy is a rapist.

This I agree with and changes in the law to insert 5 second rules or whatever they are trying to do here undermines the possibility of getting sound convictions in the future. As Law-student-boy has pointed out, consent is key in the majority of rape trials and having to demonstrate that you gave and then withdrew consent and that wasn't complied with in an appropriate amount of time will make rape trials a joke.


Yeah, should have known you guys would denigrate the situation into something like "was my sister a streetwalker".

Then why bother throwing it in. Are you new to the PC? Don't know how things work here? Don't offer personal stuff into the argument in order to bolster your authoritae, if you don't want it torn apart and handed back in tatters.


My god you're stupid and have the reading comprehension of a knat

LOL @ knat

[CrystalTears]

That's a pretty ridiculous point of view. The fault of rape is always on the rapist. Was it stupid of her to get into the car? Yes...undoubtedly. Was her subsequent rape then her fault? No. It was the fault of the perpetrator. Always.
Agreed, however it was really stupid of her to get in the car in the first place. In the same degree that it was for that girl to go to Kobe's hotel room. Neither one is consent to get raped... it never is... but how about you don't do something stupid and go somewhere with someone you don't know or trust?

[Nieninque]

Absolutely.

They must have had the sense of a knat.

(teehee)

[Khariz]

After reading this entire thread, I only have one comment.

I've always spelled gnat with a g.

[Clove]

As I had said, she had met him once before the party.

Or did you miss that part? :P

AngelaSounds like a Stoughton girl.

[Clove]

That's a pretty ridiculous point of view. The fault of rape is always on the rapist. Was it stupid of her to get into the car? Yes...undoubtedly. Was her subsequent rape then her fault? No. It was the fault of the perpetrator. Always.The rapist is always culpable for her own actions; but a victim can be an agent in their own demise. It's not ridiculous at ALL to expect people to use common sense in their own self-protection.

If I leave my car unlocked and running while I go in the grocery store, it's no less wrong for someone to steal it than if I'd taken precautions to protect my property. And if she's caught she'll face the same punishment. But nobody will feel sorry for me and... insurance won't cover my loss. Why? Because I was behaving NEGLIGENTLY.

[diethx]

Okay, whatever..if some of you people believe taking a ride from someone who you've met before constitutes consent to being raped..then there's not much hope in convicing otherwise.

Stop trying to play a victim and learn to read, you fucking moron. Obviously, no one said that.


Agreed, however it was really stupid of her to get in the car in the first place. In the same degree that it was for that girl to go to Kobe's hotel room. Neither one is consent to get raped... it never is... but how about you don't do something stupid and go somewhere with someone you don't know or trust?

Exactly. How fucking hard is it to understand this?

[TheEschaton]

Being a "FUCKING MORON" doesn't mitigate being raped. At all.

You know why? Because that leads to the slippery slope of: "Oh, she dressed like a slut, SHE'S A FUCKING MORON, she got raped."

Despite you insisting you're not justifying or excusing the rape, that's exactly what you're implying, when you imply that her "moronic actions" led to the rape.

You know what leads to rape? A rapist's need to hold power over someone defenseless. Implying that the victim's actions led to the rape is just another form of disempowering women.

I met someone just this morning at a meeting. She and I were going the same way, I saw her at the bus stop, I offered her a ride. Should she have to fear the possible consequences of me raping her? The only difference between this situation is it was a Sunday afternoon and with Ilvane's sister it was presumably at night. A previously known person (which, by the way, account for more than 2/3rds of all rapes) offers a girl a ride somewhere. We all have a right to security in our own body that implies we should not have to take unreasonable precautions in our actions to protect it.

[Clove]

Being a "FUCKING MORON" doesn't mitigate being raped. At all.

You know why? Because that leads to the slippery slope of: "Oh, she dressed like a slut, SHE'S A FUCKING MORON, she got raped."Not at all. Wrong is wrong. And stupid is stupid. What part of my example did you fail to comprehend? Would you go in front of a jury and suggest that a defendant be given a lesser sentence because some retard left their car unlocked in running? But don't tell me you wouldn't think they were being reckless with their property. It's not a slippery slope at all and we are not obligated not to criticize people for being reckless with their personal safety, simply because they were wronged and violated.

[Keller]

It's not a slippery slope at all and we are not obligated not to criticize people for being reckless with their personal safety, simply because they were wronged and violated.

Well said.

[diethx]

Being a "FUCKING MORON" doesn't mitigate being raped. At all.

You know why? Because that leads to the slippery slope of: "Oh, she dressed like a slut, SHE'S A FUCKING MORON, she got raped."

Despite you insisting you're not justifying or excusing the rape, that's exactly what you're implying, when you imply that her "moronic actions" led to the rape.

You know what leads to rape? A rapist's need to hold power over someone defenseless. Implying that the victim's actions led to the rape is just another form of disempowering women.

I met someone just this morning at a meeting. She and I were going the same way, I saw her at the bus stop, I offered her a ride. Should she have to fear the possible consequences of me raping her? The only difference between this situation is it was a Sunday afternoon and with Ilvane's sister it was presumably at night. A previously known person (which, by the way, account for more than 2/3rds of all rapes) offers a girl a ride somewhere. We all have a right to security in our own body that implies we should not have to take unreasonable precautions in our actions to protect it.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/lex-luthor-wrong.jpg

You're a fucking moron too, surprise surprise. No one has said her sister getting raped was her own fault. We have however said her sister was fucking stupid for putting herself in that position to begin with. No, of course getting into a car doesn't mean she's ready to have sex. However, EVERYONE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM STUPID, DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. It's not like she had no choice but to take a ride from someone she met briefly once before, and didn't really know at all. She could've called a cab, friends, family, etc., etc., etc. However, she CHOSE to put herself in danger by getting in a car with someone she DIDN'T KNOW WHILE DRUNK.

[Sean of the Thread]

I think I rape myself too often. It's getting out of control.

[TheEschaton]

Clove, your example would be fine, if negligence of the victim was a defense to rape, like it was in a civil action (the insurance paying for the stolen car). It isn't, though, yet defense attorneys use it all the time to dupe juries into believing it is a valid consideration.

As Keller said, asking what she was wearing/if she'd been drinking is objectionable, and will be sustained, and the jury will be asked to disregard the question. However, as Ilvane mentioned, juries rarely disregard that question - it plants the seed. It's a backdoor defense attorneys have been using forever, and there's no ramifications other than being seen as a dick by continually doing it, which many defense lawyers don't care about.


However, EVERYONE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM STUPID, DANGEROUS SITUATIONS.

Please explain to me how this isn't shifting blame to the victim and making the rapist "less culpable" in a sense?

Secondly, the standard of the (criminal) law doesn't require you to act responsibly, it doesn't even require you to act more than recklessly. Our criminal law philosophy is based on a different standard. As long as you are not breaking a criminal law (which usually draw the line between "negligence" and "recklessness", or even "recklessness" and "gross recklessness") you are a "good citizen". To make distinctions between the responsible person and the negligent (and in some cases, even the reckless yet lawful) person is not kosher in our legal system - the distinction always lies in the intent of the perpetrator.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Personally I think men or women or purposefully got inebriated or became under the influence under their own will and then put themselves into situations where this shit happens ... well wtf.

There are a thousand more serious issues that need to be addressed first before rapes or so called rapes in most cases.

I saw recently the US is making it a top priority to stop the rapes in Afghanistan and Iraq (where it's evidently legal to do) whilst we have all those problems and more right here at home.

Seriously the answer to all our problems is to use Ted Kennedy's fat for bio fuel and the world will be a better place.

[Clove]

Clove, your example would be fine, if negligence of the victim was a defense to rape, like it was in a civil action (the insurance paying for the stolen car). It isn't, though, yet defense attorneys use it all the time to dupe juries into believing it is a valid consideration.For the last fucking time, nobody is suggesting that victim stupidity is in any way a defense for assailants. But we are, as a society, allowed to criticize victims for being dumb fucks and not protecting themselves adequately. My example included a discussion of civil AND criminal.

Juries are not "duped" they aren't any less intelligent or sophisticated than law students, let alone lawyers. What a surprise; you're being an elitest.

[diethx]

For the last fucking time, nobody is suggesting that victim stupidity is in any way a defense for assailants. But we are, as a society, allowed to criticize victims for being dumb fucks and not protecting themselves adequately.

Seriously. How stupid do you have to be to not understand this?

Edit to add: No one's shifting blame anywhere. The rapist is still getting just as much blame for his actions. That doesn't mean we can't place SEPARATE blame on the dumb bitch who didn't even attempt to protect herself.

[TheEschaton]

Please, PLEASE explain how you can separate the blame and criticize one independently of the other. You seem to be saying: oh, the blame is separate, we are criticizing both people separately. However, to do so requires you accept one of two things:

1) If her actions are irrelevant, and he would have raped her whether she got in the car or not, blah blah, her actions, no matter what, are not blameworthy.

2) If her actions are relevant, and he only would have raped her if she got in the car/dressed sluttily/looked at him for 5 seconds, then criticizing her is saying she is, in some way, to blame for her own rape. And shifts at least part of the culpability to her.

Lastly, I am elitist. Of course I am. I believe I know better than the average American in this area. Anyone who believes anything, or knows anything in a specialized area, is elitist by definition when speaking in that field. I wouldn't argue military tactics with Daniel, Sean2, or even Dave, because they have specialized knowledge in that. They are elite in that field.

Unless, of course, you mean the arrogance associated with elitism, at which point I would say it's not "arrogant" to believe something that the majority of people in this country would not believe, or vice versa. When I say "juries can be duped", I mean that the majority of people would, if subjected to a defense lawyer using those tactics, fall suspect to the idea that the victim's actions are relevant to guilt of the defendant. I would not. Would anyone criticize a soldier as elitist for not falling for something a civilian might in a military situation? I think not.

Edit: Namely, juries are less sophisticated (on average) than a lawyer on ISSUES OF LAW. That's why we don't ask juries to RULE on issues of law. We ask them to be a trier of fact. Namely, culpability, consent, and what defines a rape is not a question for the jury to consider; they can only consider a) did she give consent, b) if so, did she maintain consent, c) was it voluntary, and d) although this is changing legally, did he penetrate her? If any of the first three are answered no, and the answer to D) is yes, it is, by legal definition, rape.

-TheE-

[Khariz]

Juries are not "duped" they aren't any less intelligent or sophisticated than law students, let alone lawyers. What a surprise; you're being an elitest.

HAHAHAHAHAH LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!1111 OENEENONEEONEON1`1!!!!!


:rofl:
:club:
:wtf:

That is all.

[diethx]

How can you possibly be so stupid? I mean, seriously, I thought people this stupid usually ended up dying from their own stupidity before they reached voting age?

[TheEschaton]

Please explain my stupdity. Specifically, address the two logical realities I pointed out about the victim's actions.

-TheE-

[diethx]

Please explain my stupdity. Specifically, address the two logical realities I pointed out about the victim's actions.

-TheE-

Uh, we already did. No one wants to repeat themselves for a fifth time. If you're confused, reread the last page of the thread.

[TheEschaton]

I did. And I said that it is impossible to assess blame on the victim's actions independently of the blame for the rape itself. I even laid out why that is.

Now, traditionally, this is where you would rebutt the argument I made, preferably with logic, but I can understand if that's beyond your ken.

Edit: Notice how my argument isn't with Sean2, who says he believes that women purposefully get drunk and put themselves in this situation, and implies that they are to blame, which falls into my second category. My contention here is that you cannot blame the victim for acting irresponsibly, independantly of shifting some of the blame for the rape from her assailant.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Please, PLEASE explain how you can separate the blame and criticize one independently of the other. You seem to be saying: oh, the blame is separate, we are criticizing both people separately. However, to do so requires you accept one of two things:

1) If her actions are irrelevant, and he would have raped her whether she got in the car or not, blah blah, her actions, no matter what, are not blameworthy.

2) If her actions are relevant, and he only would have raped her if she got in the car/dressed sluttily/looked at him for 5 seconds, then criticizing her is saying she is, in some way, to blame for her own rape. And shifts at least part of the culpability to her.WTF are you smoking? First of all he may NOT have raped her if she hadn't gotten into the car with her, but that really has no bearing on the correctness of his behavior. Her actions CAN BE relevant WITHOUT being a DEFENSE. A wife who shoots her husband's lover to death would NOT have murdered her had her husband not fucked her. Her husband's (and the victim's) actions are relevant to the final result; but not a defense for the accused. You suck at logic.

[Clove]

Edit: Namely, juries are less sophisticated (on average) than a lawyer on ISSUES OF LAW. That's why we don't ask juries to RULE on issues of law. We ask them to be a trier of fact. Namely, culpability, consent, and what defines a rape is not a question for the jury to consider; they can only consider a) did she give consent, b) if so, did she maintain consent, c) was it voluntary, and d) although this is changing legally, did he penetrate her? If any of the first three are answered no, and the answer to D) is yes, it is, by legal definition, rape.

-TheE-Jury nullification. Deal with it.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, good luck at getting a jury nullified.


And I'm not arguing that, legally, her actions (relevant or irrelevant) are a defense.

However, what I am arguing is that logically, you cannot blame her for her actions WITHOUT blaming her, in some way, for her rape. This is not a legal argument, it is a logical one.


The problem is that defense lawyers, even though it is irrelevant to the culpability of their client, will plant that seed, even though objectionable, in the jury's mind. Then, if the jury, in their mind, find her actions relevant to the rape, they are making a legal conclusion which is beyond their scope. This then leads to a lessening of the relevance of the TRUTH OF THE FACTS (which is what the jury is there to decide). My argument states that if they think her actions relevant, logically, she must be in some way culpable for her rape. This then colors the jury from making an accurate decision.

Defense lawyers can (and have) won not guiltys by virtue of juries deciding a "legal question" in their heads where they decide she was somehow responsible or culpable and thus the defendant less culpable.

-TheE-

[Clove]

LOL, good luck at getting a jury nullified... they are making a legal conclusion which is beyond their scope...

-TheE-

jury nullification definition – jury nullification where a jury deliberately rejects the evidence or refuses to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about a social issue or because the result dictated by the law is against the jury’s sense of justice or morality. Jury nullification might occur, for instance, where a husband avenges the murder of his wife by killing the attacker. It is NOT beyond their scope.

[TheEschaton]

Making conclusions on issues of law (within which "determining culpability of a particular crime" falls) is beyond the scope of the jury. This is saying the jury's role is to look at the evidence, and, if they believe it to be true, apply the relevant law for that set of facts. They are triers of FACT, not LAW.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Making conclusions on issues of law (within which "determining culpability of a particular crime" falls) is beyond the scope of the jury. This is saying the jury's role is to look at the evidence, and, if they believe it to be true, apply the relevant law for that set of facts. They are triers of FACT, not LAW.

-TheE-They are triers of justice.

[TheEschaton]

IE, they determine the TRUTH of the facts.


The question of whether they find a law morally wrong and whether they can choose not to apply it is a hotly debated issue (to me).

[Clove]

The question of whether they find a law morally wrong and whether they can choose not to apply it is a hotly debated issue (to me).Which brings us full circle to your elitism. Jurors don't know what's best, only smart experts like Uncle E do.

[Tea & Strumpets]

[url]As he began, she told him to stop because he was hurting her, but he kept going for five or 10 seconds, she said.

I think I speak for all premature ejaculators when I say, "VICTORY IS OURS!!!"

A friend of mine asked me to post that, not me.

[Daniel]

Rofl.

God I'm so glad I only thought about law school for maybe 6 seconds.

[Clove]

I think I speak for all premature ejaculators...There's no such thing... it's always right on time :D

[Keller]

There's no such thing... it's always right on time :D

<3 Eddie Murphy.

[Shifted]

Sounds like a Stoughton girl.

Don't you mean Essex?

[Clove]

Don't you mean Essex?I was being generous. The trim in Stoughton is more appealing.

[g++]

The question of whether they find a law morally wrong and whether they can choose not to apply it is a hotly debated issue (to me).

Lol I have served on Juries, I have absolutely no respect for law whatsoever and will definately vote completely outside the confines of the jury instructions and in my experience Id say more than half of jurors are the same as me.

[Clove]

Lol I have served on Juries, I have absolutely no respect for law whatsoever and will definately vote completely outside the confines of the jury instructions and in my experience Id say more than half of jurors are the same as me.Well E will be happy to tell you what your opinion as a juror should be if you ever lose your way.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, you never happened to ask what my position was, and I simply stated the question is a hot topic to me. I happen to believe if the jury finds the law unjust, they shouldn't follow it. I also happen to believe that the jury should find however they so feel in those cases.

It's only a hotly debated issue to me because most lawyers think juries should just apply the law.

Now, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, I don't believe the rape law (which says you must only consider the intent of the rapist) is unjust, so I don't ever think questions of the victim's actions should ever come into play. Therefore, I think the jury SHOULD apply the law in this case. However, your whole little argument that people can criticize the victim's actions without making the defendant less culpable in the jury's mind A) isn't true, and B) runs against a law I think is just, and so on, so forth.

-TheE-

[g++]

The rape shield law is unconstitutional bullshit. I had a friend get beaten half to death by a gang of guys because "he looked like a black guy that robbed them" He had to go to court and defend himself against their accusations of robbery at his attackers assault trial. Of course if your a hotel cousierge that Kobe Bryant sexually assaulted for no reason you get to remain annonymous and be above suspicion. Its horseshit and alot of innocent people are in jail right now because of it.

[BigWorm]

The rape shield law is unconstitutional bullshit. I had a friend get beaten half to death by a gang of guys because "he looked like a black guy that robbed them" He had to go to court and defend himself against their accusations of robbery at his attackers assault trial. Of course if your a hotel cousierge that Kobe Bryant sexually assaulted for no reason you get to remain annonymous and be above suspicion. Its horseshit and alot of innocent people are in jail right now because of it.

They're only anonymous to the press. You still have the right to face your accuser in a court of law.

Unless that accuser is an undercover law enforcement officer.

[g++]

They're only anonymous to the press. You still have the right to face your accuser in a court of law.

Unless that accuser is an undercover law enforcement officer.

So instead of the scrutiny of the world the case gets the scrutiny of your lawyer. Who if your poor doesnt give a shit.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, almost all jurisdictions in the United States adopted some form of rape shield statute. The laws in each state differ according to the scope of sexual behavior shielded and time limits of the shield. Many American states do not permit any evidence relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness. This encompasses evidence of specific instances of the victim's prior or subsequent sexual conduct including opinion evidence or reputation evidence. [3].

In 1999 in the case of People v. Jovanovic, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had improperly ruled as inadmissible e-mail messages in which the complaining witness in a rape case expressed her consent to, and later approval of, the encounter. The lower court ruled these e-mails as inadmissible on the basis of rape shield laws, however the Court of Appeals ruled that the previous court had misapplied these laws.

[TheEschaton]

That just says what evidence isn't allowed, it doesn't say that American states don't allow the VICTIM to come in and testify, it just says you can't question her on certain subjects.

[g++]

Yes thanks E I can read. I maintain its bullshit. For instance the duke rape accusor had twice before accused people of gang raping her and both times there was no evidence anything happened, if it went to trial that would be inadmissable. Same with the Kobe case if the shit they dug up on that girl wasnt inadmissable the prosecutor wouldent have even thought about moving forward.

If the "rapist" had been having sexual relations with the accusor prior that would be inadmissable. If the accusor was a prostitute thats inadmissable. If the accusor had a history of drinking too much and hooking up with guys then regretting it and crying rape, thats inadmissable.

All these things that are inadmissable could further the cause of the defendant being proved innocent and they are excluded because of the antiquated notion that females would never lie about being raped when damn near every day it happens again. The scary thing is you only read about the false rape accusations when the women is too blatantly stupid to get away with it. How many times does the guy just spend 10 years in jail?

[Nieninque]

Even if someone had a history of drinking too much, hooking up with guys and then regretting it and crying rape, it still wouldn't mean that she wasn't raped this time round. Using that as evidence in a current trial would seriously cloud the evidence of what happened this time.

That's why irrelevant shit is inadmissable and each hearing should deal purely and simply with the issues in hand.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Since we are talking about a rape victim, I wanna know more about the circumstances. Like, she got in the car, and he drove around the block, parked in a dark alley and raped her? Or did he take her to his home against her will? How'd he get her clothes off and how'd he keep people from seeing her being raped? Did she scream? Did he then drop her off at the next block, kick her out of his car? Was she beat up? Did she then go to the police, clothes torn and baby batter leaking down her leg or go home and wash up? When did the police get involved?

There is a LOT we don't know as to why the jury would find the man innocent of rape. I think it Ilvane is a little emotionally tied to the argument, so isn't providing those details that would help her argument.

[g++]

So you think a pattern of lieng about being raped by the accusor is irrelevent in a rape trial. Well done.

[Stanley Burrell]

So you think a pattern of lieng about being raped by the accusor is irrelevent in a rape trial. Well done.

It's not lying, IMHO, it's tangential. And how the public views that. And what its impacts are on an actual rapist vs. an ordinary douchebag.

2 IMHO cent pieces :shrug:

[g++]

Look Im not advocating for rapists, I honestly dont give a shit and would never put myself in a position where it becomes an issue. The rape laws piss me off because they trample the shit out of the defendants rights and the only reason its allowed is because of gender stereotypes.

[Nieninque]

Look Im not advocating for rapists, I honestly dont give a shit and would never put myself in a position where it becomes an issue. The rape laws piss me off because they trample the shit out of the defendants rights and the only reason its allowed is because of gender stereotypes.

Because only women are raped.

[g++]

Because only women are raped.

Yes legally men cannot be raped

[Daniel]

Because only women are raped.

It's still bullshit.

[g++]

Yes legally men cannot be raped

Actually I think Im wrong on that, not gonna edit myself cause your prolly already flaming me, but regardless there have been what like 3 in the past 5 years outside of prison or something? In texas?

[Nieninque]

Actually I think Im wrong on that, not gonna edit myself cause your prolly already flaming me, but regardless there have been what like 3 in the past 5 years outside of prison or something? In texas?

Only three rapes? Or only three male rape trials that you personally know of?

[g++]

Only three rapes? Or only three male rape trials that you personally know of?

I remember hearing about a guy in texas raping 3 men about a year ago thats the last time I heard about a male on male sexual assault rape, if you know of others Id say you know way more about the issue then me, the problem is Im at work and theres no way in hell I am googling this subject right now.

[Nieninque]

I dont know how many rape trials there have been regarding male rape, I have to say. I'm sure there have been more than three though.

[g++]

Well, like I said I am at work, I will say I vaguely remember the way the rape laws are structured male on male rape often falls into other categories like molestation or sodomy. I know there was like one case on the books of a female raping a man but the law wouldent support it so she ended up on trial for sexual assault. Its a really weird subject.

[Daniel]

Are you counting prison?

[g++]

Anyway I think we can at least agree this issue is like WAY WAY WAY by far and large a crime men perpetrate against women so regardless of the numbers that come back for this, its going to be no where near the numbers for traditional rape. I cant believe I just typed traditional rape.

[g++]

Are you counting prison?

No specifically said outside of prison

[Clove]

However, your whole little argument that people can criticize the victim's actions without making the defendant less culpable in the jury's mind A) isn't true, and B) runs against a law I think is just, and so on, so forth.

-TheE-My whole little argument never brought up juries and doesn't run against any law. We as a mother fucking society you dumb fucking law student are free to criticize a victim's stupidity when they make foolish choices. It doesn't make a rapist less culpable, it simply makes the victim stupid (in our estimation).

[Clove]

...If the accusor was a prostitute thats inadmissable...That's bullshit, hookers ought to be fair game- but you only if you leave a few bills after.

[TheEschaton]

And I'm simply saying that that logic is flawed. Even if we're talking about society versus a jury.

[TheEschaton]

Look Im not advocating for rapists, I honestly dont give a shit and would never put myself in a position where it becomes an issue. The rape laws piss me off because they trample the shit out of the defendants rights and the only reason its allowed is because of gender stereotypes.

Errr, I don't know what you're talking about.....past convictions, behaviors, etc, are OFTEN not included for ANY crime.

I was in a mock trial the other day where I was the mock prosecutor of some kid accused of drunk driving. He had been convicted on an Open Container charge, and a check fraud charge, and neither were let in. Too unfairly prejudical, not enough probative value. The Open Container was considered MORE inadmissable because it was TOO similar to the current charge.

Like Nein already so eloquently stated, the trial is about the matter at hand, not what happened in the past -for all the false cries of rape, the victim may very well have been raped this time. You have to overcome significant burdens to admit evidence about any past actions.


-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

oh, btw:


An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male.

So almost 1 in ten rape victims is a man. hmmmmmm. Maybe there were only 30 rapes last year.

[Clove]

And I'm simply saying that that logic is flawed. Even if we're talking about society versus a jury.The flaw only exists because you put it there. We made comments about how foolish choices make a victim more VULNERABLE not CULPABLE. Now remember it's VULNERABLE not CULPABLE. You can see how very different the words are? I realize it's a difficult temptation for a law student to resist, but you'd really have to be twisting your logic if you implied that because someone made themselves vulnerable that made them responsible for a crime committed against them. Try to focus on what was actually said.

It's important for society to observe acts of stupidity and see it for what it is in hopes of keeping others from making the same stupid choices.

[g++]

Errr, I don't know what you're talking about.....past convictions, behaviors, etc, are OFTEN not included for ANY crime.

I was in a mock trial the other day where I was the mock prosecutor of some kid accused of drunk driving. He had been convicted on an Open Container charge, and a check fraud charge, and neither were let in. Too unfairly prejudical, not enough probative value. The Open Container was considered MORE inadmissable because it was TOO similar to the current charge.

Like Nein already so eloquently stated, the trial is about the matter at hand, not what happened in the past -for all the false cries of rape, the victim may very well have been raped this time. You have to overcome significant burdens to admit evidence about any past actions.


-TheE-

Yes, but the defendant is usually the one afforded those protections not the accusor? If the cop had been reprimanded 3 times for charging sober teenagers with DUI im sure that would be admissible.

[g++]

oh, btw:



So almost 1 in ten rape victims is a man. hmmmmmm. Maybe there were only 30 rapes last year.


I doubt those statistics were compiled from filed charges. If you look into state rape laws most states dont allow men raped by other men to be charged with "Rape" they get charged with sexual assault.

Also I just looked up your statistic its from the Bureu of Justice, it counts sexual assault as rape and does not take age into account. We are specifically talking about grown men raping other grown men and being charged with rape.

Actually digging really far now, it looks like that data you got is from a self reporting survey. Nice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ncvs104.pdf


Also where ever you pulled that quote from made a pretty mis-leading jump since I went to the same raw data and it clearly said Rape/Sexual Assault not rape.

[TheEschaton]

I got it off a Cornell website which did a study on rape.


Yes, but the defendant is usually the one afforded those protections not the accusor? If the cop had been reprimanded 3 times for charging sober teenagers with DUI im sure that would be admissible.

Past acts of witnesses are not allowed in either, usually, but the bar is admittedly lower in terms of admitting it. For example, if someone took a deal to testify, you can usually mention that. But you couldn't cross on the fact that this person had robbed X number of banks before with defendant Y, unless the prosecution was stupid enough to "open the door", IE mention it on direct. Nor, if you have a person who was mugged and described their assailant as a black man, could you talk about their membership in, say, the KKK unless you overcome the bar against it. In that case, you'd have to somehow be able to prove membership in the KKK caused this person to make up the (black) identification of his/her assailant, when that's not true.

-TheE-

[g++]

I got it off a Cornell website which did a study on rape.



Past acts of witnesses are not allowed in either, usually, but the bar is admittedly lower in terms of admitting it. For example, if someone took a deal to testify, you can usually mention that. But you couldn't cross on the fact that this person had robbed X number of banks before with defendant Y, unless the prosecution was stupid enough to "open the door", IE mention it on direct. Nor, if you have a person who was mugged and described their assailant as a black man, could you talk about their membership in, say, the KKK unless you overcome the bar against it. In that case, you'd have to somehow be able to prove membership in the KKK caused this person to make up the (black) identification of his/her assailant, when that's not true.

-TheE-

Well Cornell's students are idiots.

The case you gave would be admitted, because it goes to the credibility and possible bias of the witness, if you could prove a witness against a black man was a member of the KKK it would be admissable. Not to mention that no judge in his/her god loving right mind would want to lose an appeal on the grounds that they let a god damn clansmen testify against a black man. Get real.

From Wikipedia

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. There are a number of ways that a witness may properly be impeached, and several ways that, although effective, are prohibited except under special circumstances.

Methods of impeachment
A party may be impeached through introducing evidence of any of the following (remembered via the mnemonic BICCC):

Bias--The witness is biased against one party or in favor of the other. The witness has a personal interest in the outcome of the case. A classic example is a witness for the prosecution who is awaiting sentencing. He's more likely to be pro-prosecution in hopes of better treatment. The proper way to handle this is first to question the witness to see if he will admit to the bias. If not, then the cross-examiner may bring in other witnesses to expose the bias.

Inconsistent Statement--The witness has made two or more conflicting statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his credibility.
Character Show that the witness has a community-recognized reputation for dishonesty. Specific examples are inadmissible -- unless the witness admits them himself under cross-examination -- but to present witnesses who can attest to the witness's character is helpful. This might seem tedious, especially when it is realized that a character witness against the principal witness may himself be impeached the same way, but normally witnesses are total unknowns to jurors, and people with reputations in their community for being total fabricators do show up in court from time to time. Coupled with character are prior criminal acts by the witness. This is handled in one of three ways:

If the witness has committed any crime involving dishonesty (i.e. larceny-by-trick, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) then the prior conviction is admissible under every circumstance.

If the witness is the criminal defendant, a felony conviction (i.e., conviction of a crime that is punishable of at least one year in prison) is admissible if the judge determines that the probative value outweighs the potential for prejudice. If the witness is not the criminal defendant, a felony conviction is admissible unless the judge determines that its prejudical nature substantially outweighs its probativity.

Stale felonies, that is, felonies where the witness was released at least ten years ago (or was found guilty ten years ago if no incarceration) are admissible only if the probative value substantially outweighs its prejudice.

Competency Basically show that the witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (i.e., could not see from where he was, etc.) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity. Older common law would exclude an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence allow the witness on the stand (in most cases) considering competence but one of many factors juries are to consider when determining credibility of the witness.

[Khariz]

Yes, but the defendant is usually the one afforded those protections not the accusor?

Here's what the Federal Rules of Evidence say. Most states have adopted them almost verbatim:


Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes

(a) Character evidence generally

Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

(1) Character of accused - In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404 (a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution;

(2) Character of alleged victim - In a criminal case, and subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor;

(3) Character of witness - Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in rules 607, 608, and 609.

(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

[g++]

The basic rule regarding inferences the jury may draw from particular testimony is Rule 404.

[g++]

Im kinda done with this thread I dont feel like looking this shit up anymore and it takes me three times as long to find out why your stats and quotes are mis-used bullshit then it does for you to find bad stats and quotes.

[Khariz]

Im kinda done with this thread I dont feel like looking this shit up anymore and it takes me three times as long to find out why your stats and quotes are mis-used bullshit then it does for you to find bad stats and quotes.

Dude, you are the one quoting from wikipedia. :rofl:

[g++]

Dude, you are the one quoting from wikipedia. :rofl:

I looked up the hard numbers behind the stat E posted that took a while. As far as wikipedia for the witness impeachment thing are you saying its wrong?

[Khariz]

I looked up the hard numbers behind the stat E posted that took a while. As far as wikipedia for the witness impeachment thing are you saying its wrong?

Le Sigh.


Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness

(a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character.

The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.

(b) Specific instances of conduct.

Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.

The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused's or the witness' privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters that relate only to character for truthfulness.


Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime

(a) General rule.

For the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a witness,

(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and

(2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted regardless of the punishment, if it readily can be determined that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement by the witness.

(b) Time limit.

Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than 10 years old as calculated herein, is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

(c) Effect of pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation.

Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if (1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or (2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.

(d) Juvenile adjudications.

Evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible under this rule. The court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.

(e) Pendency of appeal.

The pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible.

But for sexual related things:


Rule 412. Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition

(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.

The following evidence is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c):

(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior.

(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition.

(b) Exceptions.

(1) In a criminal case, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under these rules:

(A) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;

(B) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct offered by the accused to prove consent or by the prosecution; and

(C) evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant.

(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the alleged victim.

(c) Procedure to determine admissibility.

(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision (b) must --

(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for good cause requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and

(B) serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative.

(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a hearing in camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. The motion, related papers, and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal unless the court orders otherwise.

No, the wikipedia article is not a bad summation of generalities concerning the impeachment of witnesses. Many rules of evidence interlock though and cause problems.

[g++]

::shrug:: I stand by my original statements, those quotes dont contradict my original assertions.

[Khariz]

::shrug:: I stand by my original statements, those quotes dont contradict my original assertions.

I started posting when you said the defendant and not the accusor is generally afforded the protections.

The accusor ALWAYS has great protection against bringing up previous crimes or instances of conduct unless necessary to do something specific other than causing the jury to make an ill-founded inference.

The above, to me, show that you are wrong.

[g++]

I understand the accusor always has some protections but in court in reality they are far less than what limitations on what can be brought in about a defendants past, whether the black letter law alludes to that or not I really dont know. I am not a lawyer. E used an example from mock court of a person on trial being given all these protections against past bad acts. My statement was in responce to that to point out that her example was not wholly pertinent to what we were talking about since in her example she was talking about a defendant and in every other post we were talking about accusors.

[Nieninque]

Im kinda done with this thread I dont feel like looking this shit up anymore and it takes me three times as long to find out why your stats and quotes are mis-used bullshit then it does for you to find bad stats and quotes.

Says the person who was quoting Wikipedia in a thread about the law.

[Khariz]

Says the person who was quoting Wikipedia in a thread about the law.

Aparently I wasn't the only one who was tickled by that.

[g++]

Nieninque meet Khariz, hes like you except faster

[g++]

I dont know why using wikipedia is so frowned upon the plain english of what I posted mirrors the actual document Khariz found anyway. The statistic E posted was blatantly mis-used by who ever she quoted and the 404 document was mis-leading because it doesnt pertain to testimony or evidence introduction which is what we were discussing. I cant just clock out and go to a law library to defend my view point.

[Nieninque]

I understand the accusor always has some protections but in court in reality they are far less than what limitations on what can be brought in about a defendants past, whether the black letter law alludes to that or not I really dont know. I am not a lawyer. E used an example from mock court of a person on trial being given all these protections against past bad acts. My statement was in responce to that to point out that her example was not wholly pertinent to what we were talking about since in her example she was talking about a defendant and in every other post we were talking about accusors.

The E runs like a girl, but is actually a man.

[Khariz]

I dont know why using wikipedia is so frowned upon the plain english of what I posted mirrors the actual document Khariz found anyway. The statistic E posted was blatantly mis-used by who ever she quoted and the 404 document was mis-leading because it doesnt pertain to testimony or evidence introduction which is what we were discussing. I cant just clock out and go to a law library to defend my view point.

I wholly disagree with you that 404 is not applicable.

You can't introduce evidence or ask questions of the accused, the victim, or other witnessess to show that they have acted in a certain way in the past in order to imply to the jury that on THIS occassion as well, they acted the same way.

Seems pretty applicable to me.

[g++]

Khariz there like 15 contradictions just in the 5 or 6 rules you have posted. I mean if those rules were actually followed to the letter no one would say anything in court. Like I said I am not a lawyer I cant continue this argument on the grounds that I cant even understand half of what rule 404 means and dont have enough background law knowledge to argue it. If you want to pretend witness character assasination doesnt happen in court because 404 says so fine, fact is it does though.

[Khariz]

Khariz there like 15 contradictions just in the 5 or 6 rules you have posted. I mean if those rules were actually followed to the letter no one would say anything in court. Like I said I am not a lawyer I cant continue this argument on the grounds that I cant even understand half of what rule 404 means and dont have enough background law knowledge to argue it. If you want to pretend witness character assasination doesnt happen in court because 404 says so fine, fact is it does though.

Sorry, there really isn't contradictions. I will concede that they are hard to understand. This is why Evidence is a required course in Law Schools and why Lawyers are a Profession. We understand these things. Don't worry, I'm not getting elitist on you...I'm just stating a fact.

I'll say that I think they are poorly organized, but the rules ARE actually followed to the letter. The only time they are not is when the opposing attorney chooses not to object, or when he is too stupid to know to object (which is probably more common).

Character assassination occurs on the alternate grounds enumerated on the rules. If you can find another legitimate reason to ask the question (motive, etc) other than trying to prove current conformity with former acts, or to do nothing other than to make the jury draw an unfounded inference, you can still ask the question...PER the rules.

It's complicated to understand in a comprehensive way, but it's not contradictory or too limiting to questions that may be asked or evidence that may be introduced. It does, however, ensure that only questions that are relevant and not too prejudicing are asked/entered.

Holding the entirety of evidence in my mind, if only long enough to take the exam for the course, was hard enough. I can't imagine not being able to cross reference them whenever I need to.

[TheEschaton]

Fucking elitist.

[Khariz]

Fucking elitist.

:yes:

Sorry, E. I took up your banner whild you were gone today. Oh, and please note that you are Female now.

[g++]

I rarely come down to this folder I dont have your genders memorized. Like I said I give up I cant argue with Lawyers about the law. I still know fair though, and rape shield laws are bullshit. Even if everything you guys say is true they are not only bullshit but entirely unnesseccary since you cant say shit about a witness anyway. Right?

[Khariz]

I rarely come down to this folder I dont have your genders memorized. Like I said I give up I cant argue with Lawyers about the law. I still know fair though, and rape shield laws are bullshit. Even if everything you guys say is true they are not only bullshit but entirely unnesseccary since you cant say shit about a witness anyway. Right?

Honestly, the sexual aspects of the Rules of Evidence haven't been around all that long. It may very well be true, NOW, that rape shields could be repealed, and the Rules of Evidence could cover it.

It may be though, that rape shields give better remedies to the "victim" for violations of the Shield that would not be available to someone if an opposing lawyer spouts off at the mouth in the courtroom, knowing that there will be an objection, but purposely tainting the jury. Under the rules of evidence, the lawyer could maybe saying something with impugnity, whereas the rape shield might provide for some kind of punishment for doing so.

I'm not familiar with any rape shield in particular, so I can't comment on the purpose of them for other reasons that the obvious.