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: Original Mad Dog who wrote (11451)	8/7/2003 11:12:12 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 14610

A friend of mine used to represent several professional basketball players in legal matters. He spent most of his time mopping up traffic infractions, child support claims, and other general work cleaning up after errors of judgment and lack of maturity. These guys are the cream of the crop from a sports point of view. They've been coddled and spoiled since high school or even before. Is it any wonder they think the normal rules don't apply to them? I'd say if the victim's past sexual history comes in, so should Kobe's past sexual behavior (won't happen IMO).

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (11451)	8/7/2003 11:15:31 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	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.>> I understand the logic and yeah, tramps can be raped. However, the life we choose to lead can have future ramifications. IMO - everything should be on the table (not public table) so that based on EVERYTHING a jury can come to a conclusion. I don't want to see the woman re-victimized BUT I don't want to send the guy to prison for life unless all is known. This is a private matter even if the public has interest. I believe the best way to handle things is by way of private trial where everything can be discussed and a fair conclusion reached. In a case like this I'm not sure that can happen in front of the camera.