I Know The Mens Rights Movement Is About Equality
Interesting link to proposals over juror misconduct planned for the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25290797
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25290797
61-69, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
sierra33
This is a great article!! Then again...I understand what I read!! Decent reading comprehension really helps in life. Thanks for sharing it mike!!
bluelady1021
mike never claimed that the article had anything to do with rape shield laws or that rape shield laws protect the accused, as a certified idiot has implied.
Some evidentiary laws protect the accused, and some evidentiary laws protect the accuser/victim. It just depends. Rape shield laws protect the accuser from having the accused present irrelevant evidence relating to their past sexual history, and/or irrelevant evidence of specific instances of the accuser's prior or subsequent sexual conduct including opinion evidence or reputation evidence. The accused used to present this kind of evidence to try to make the accuser/victim look bad so the jury would turn against them and acquit the accused even if the accused clearly committed the crime. Someone's unrelated past sexual history, or prior or subsequent sexual conduct and their reputation, does not in any way prove that they have not been raped. That is why it has been determined to be inappropriate to question them about those kinds of things, or present other evidence in that regard.
However, and contrary to what JB and others may believe, if their the accuser's/victim's past sexual history, or past and subsequent sexual conduct is in some way relevant to the rape case the rape shield laws will not apply and evidence of that nature will be allowed to be presented. An example of this is the 1999 case of People v. Jovanovic. In that case the New York Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had improperly ruled as inadmissible e-mail in which the accuser/victim in a rape case expressed her consent to, and later approval of, rape encounter. The lower court ruled these e-mails inadmissible on the basis of rape shield laws; however, the Court of Appeals ruled that the previous court had misapplied those laws, and that because that evidence was relevant it to the rape case the court should have have allowed it to be presented.
The same limitations on the kinds of evidence that may be submitted at a trial don't just apply to rape. For instance, someone who has been sued civilly for sexual harassment cannot present evidence of the plaintiff's past sexual history or sexual behavior because it is irrelevant. The fact that a plaintiff enjoys sex, and has engaged in a great deal of sexual activity, does not excuse the defendant from sexually harassing a plaintiff who does not want anything to do with them sexually.
In addition, and contrary to what JB claimed earlier, rape shield laws do not prevent the media from disclosing the name of an alleged rape victim. Doing so was determined to be unconstitutional years ago. However, as a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim. If the case is dropped or the alleged rapist is acquitted, most media will no longer shield the name of the alleged victim, and many will publish it without hesitation.
Some evidentiary laws protect the accused, and some evidentiary laws protect the accuser/victim. It just depends. Rape shield laws protect the accuser from having the accused present irrelevant evidence relating to their past sexual history, and/or irrelevant evidence of specific instances of the accuser's prior or subsequent sexual conduct including opinion evidence or reputation evidence. The accused used to present this kind of evidence to try to make the accuser/victim look bad so the jury would turn against them and acquit the accused even if the accused clearly committed the crime. Someone's unrelated past sexual history, or prior or subsequent sexual conduct and their reputation, does not in any way prove that they have not been raped. That is why it has been determined to be inappropriate to question them about those kinds of things, or present other evidence in that regard.
However, and contrary to what JB and others may believe, if their the accuser's/victim's past sexual history, or past and subsequent sexual conduct is in some way relevant to the rape case the rape shield laws will not apply and evidence of that nature will be allowed to be presented. An example of this is the 1999 case of People v. Jovanovic. In that case the New York Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had improperly ruled as inadmissible e-mail in which the accuser/victim in a rape case expressed her consent to, and later approval of, rape encounter. The lower court ruled these e-mails inadmissible on the basis of rape shield laws; however, the Court of Appeals ruled that the previous court had misapplied those laws, and that because that evidence was relevant it to the rape case the court should have have allowed it to be presented.
The same limitations on the kinds of evidence that may be submitted at a trial don't just apply to rape. For instance, someone who has been sued civilly for sexual harassment cannot present evidence of the plaintiff's past sexual history or sexual behavior because it is irrelevant. The fact that a plaintiff enjoys sex, and has engaged in a great deal of sexual activity, does not excuse the defendant from sexually harassing a plaintiff who does not want anything to do with them sexually.
In addition, and contrary to what JB claimed earlier, rape shield laws do not prevent the media from disclosing the name of an alleged rape victim. Doing so was determined to be unconstitutional years ago. However, as a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim. If the case is dropped or the alleged rapist is acquitted, most media will no longer shield the name of the alleged victim, and many will publish it without hesitation.
JackBarnesMRA
Um. That had nothing to do with rape shield laws. Rape shield laws do not protect the accused.
You sir are a certified idiot.
You sir are a certified idiot.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
I knew you wouldn't read the relevant part Jack . It's near the bottom where the female juror googled the accused's previous rape charge......which wasn't given as evidence to the jury in his current trial. Learn to read will you. Who is the idiot now?