Excerpt from an NPR broadcast, April 12, 2006:
MADELEINE BRAND, host: And I'm Madeleine Brand. How do you prosecute a rape case when there is no DNA evidence? That's the task ahead for the DA in Durham, North Carolina. He's pursuing charges against members of the Duke University lacrosse team. A woman says she was raped at a lacrosse team party, but there is no DNA linking the suspects. Laurie Levenson is a former federal prosecutor. She now teaches at Loyola Law School here in Los Angeles. Welcome to the program.
. . . .
BRAND: Laurie, you said earlier that rape cases are more difficult to prosecute than you think. Can you flesh that out? Why is that?
Prof. LEVENSON: Oh, they're very difficult to prosecute, because frankly, even though we think that we've advanced to a time of equality, you know, jurors are still very suspicious of the victim. Especially when you have a victim like this, who comes from her background, pointing the finger at these college athletes, and the ideas that they are the heroes of their university. So when you go to trial, a lot of people are suspicious of the victim. It's hard to give her the credibility she needs for the prosecution to win the case.
Editor's note: ". . . a victim like this." Thank you, professor, for prejudging the case and assuming the false accuser was the "victim" -- based, it seems, on the gender of the accused. I know nothing about her other than what I see in the story, but THIS is what we allow to teach our sons? And to GRADE them? Wow!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Unfortunately, it is very easy to falsely prosecute men. "Rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute" is feminist bullshit. They don't need so much as a shred of credible evidence to destroy an innocent life.
The rape laws dating from the 1800's England have never made any sense because under the law it didn't matter if it was a prostitute or a nun who had been raped. A prostitue having sex with numerous men all of the time is certainly not going to be damaged like the nun who was likely a virgin and who someone broke into a convent and raped. Of course, even though the law may have not distinguished between them the jury who knew their backgrounds certainly would and rule based on their common sense. The problem today with rape shield laws is that the jury does not know the background or character of the woman making the allegations so the woman going out, drinking and picking up a new man every other day is placed in the same category as the stay at home chaste spinster. You can't always tell in court by appearance and the whore may appear to be a chaste woman especially after the prosecutor coaches her on her testimony and sees that she dresses like a prim librarian. Rape shield laws must go because the testimony of the complainant must be judged on its credibility. Even before these shield laws the defence couldn't just do anything they wanted and a judge would stop any improper line of questioning that violated the rules of evidence. You see, in other cases like battery, the jurors can size up the defendant and the victim much better and will use their judgement and common sense in coming to a decision. The guy who punches some frail 90yo female in the face is not the same as a guy who punches Mike Tyson. Rape shield laws leave out the jury's ability to size up everyone in the case because we all know that this is what juries are mostly doing when they decide a case.And btw, if a jury brings in a guilty verdict out of some sort of bias and the evidence wasn't there to convict, the judge who was following the testimony and evidence carefully will just overturn it. Not guilty verdicts cannot be overturned except in cases of fraud.
"Rape shield laws leave out the jury's ability to size up everyone in the case because we all know that this is what juries are mostly doing when they decide a case."
The nun who is raped can testify that she was a virgin; so can the virgin. If they so testify, they open the door to cross-examination to judge if they are being truthful. It is their discretion as to whether they want to open the door to their past. The ones who would not open the door are the ones who've had various partners.
I know a lot of people who are supporters of the falsely accused who think the rape shield laws, in theory, were a good idea. But when they prevent testimony that a woman is a prostitute and keep a defendant from saying he paid her for sex but that they had a dispute about the price -- well, that's wrong. That goes directly to the defense in the case, and most judges would allow that sort of evidence in. And when the rape shield laws prevent evidence that she falsely accused other men of rape, that's wrong, too.
Rape shield laws can only lead to the innocent being convicted, while allowing the evidence they proscribe would not acquit the guilty.
I've heard the logic that if the man's priors are not introduced, neither should the woman's.
Just because a woman falsely accused before does not mean she did again/Just because he raped before does not mean he raped again could be absolutely true - in BOTH instances.
OFTEN that is completely true - a false accuser WILL accused again, a rapist DOES rape again. It's
TERRIBLE for someone with that history to get away with it because such information is inadmissable.
It's also true that anyone can be raped - even prostitutes or a prior false accuser.
As it's true a person once accused of rape or molest can easily be the target of a false accusation. Michael Jackson comes to mind.
I think you're missing the point.It's the defendant who cannot be compelled to testify against himself or to have a prior record revealed in most cases because there is a presumption of innocence and nothing should be revealed to prejudice jurors. The prosecution's witness (the woman claiming rape) is not on trial and cannot be convicted of a crime and sent to prison so the defence has every right to attack her credibility and bring in prior acts to do it. In doing this if she commits perjury then she can be charged too.
Post a Comment