Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (11450)	8/7/2003 11:02:51 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

The idea behind the rape shield law is twofold: (1) to protect the victim from embarrassment (which inevitably would inhibit victims from coming forward); and (2) to better find the truth based on the notion that evidence of past sexual behavior is not relevant to what happened in the present situation. There is a real fear that if you let that in, every defendant will try to paint the victim as a slut. But even victims who have been known to be a bit loose can nevertheless be victims of rape. You don't want a trial process that essentially makes it open season on anybody with a past. Colorado does have a procedure where you can petition the judge in exceptional cases to admit some prior behavior, such as (for example) a past history of false rape accusations. In the end, the victim gets up there under all that pressure and tells her version, the defendant (if he chooses to) gets up there and tells his version, the other witnesses to various aspects of the situation tell their tales, and the jury looks them all in the eye and decides who to believe. It will seem like a circus, but is there a better way?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (11450)	8/7/2003 11:08:47 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Can you tell me what her prior sexual history has to do with the question whetheer Kobe boinked her without her consent?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (11450)	8/7/2003 11:57:02 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

Gloopie, the rules of evidence keep a lot of "relevant" information from juries across the board. In criminal cases, you have exclusionary rules to penalize unjustified searches and seizures. In civil cases, juries are generally not told that the plaintiff received workers compensation benefits for the injury or the amounts of pre-trial settlements with other defendants. They're not told how their allocation of fault percentages affects the ultimate recovery. Remarriage of a widow is inadmissible evidence in a wrongful death case. Just a few examples. In the mid 90's I tried a spoliation of evidence case in Orange County. Not many people had tried such cases so we were sorta breaking new ground on the method of presentation. The court allowed me to explain how the tort system works to the jury in opening statement. (This was necessary for jurors to understand the significance of the lost evidence to the underlying case). I spent 1 1/2 hours in the opening, explaining the law and how trials work. There was an audible gasp when I explained joint and several liability where a marginally responsible, but solvent, defendant can be tagged for the lion's share of a judgment. That information is never provided to juries. I think I tainted that pool forever:-)