This is only going to stop when women start doing worse to rapists than the rapists can do to them.

That said, making the victim view the tape of her own rape is just calling her a lying slut and doing it with actions instead of words. I read one article where the defense lawyer accused her of just changing her mind afterward and it’s clear he obtained his acquittal in mcuh the same way the cops were acquitted in the Rodney King case—-by divorcing the contents of the tape from the human being abused in it. The thing is, when it’s a matter of race, it’s important. When it’s women, nobody cares.

I thought it was law, too. Maybe it’s just one of those laws which varies from state to state? Because I know it’s definitely a law in some states. Like Oklahoma. I remember what a big deal some people made out of it when the law was passed. As if there’s some higher law which prohibits infringement upon men’s divine right to porn, misogyny and pussy.

I remember it wasn’t just limited to intoxication. A sleeping person is also considered to be in an unconscious state. Many women do respond with arousal to stimulation when they’re sound asleep. It’s anyone’s guess what they might be dreaming. So does this now imply consent? Well this case sure sets a precedent for it. And opens up a big can of worms.

Which brings to mind another case of a woman who was attacked in her bedroom by a stranger who had broken into her house and asked him to put on a condom. The defense outrageously used this to imply that the rapist had been given consent.

Why doesn’t the state just start issuing licenses to men that can be obtained at their local Walmart? Because it’s obviously open hunting season on women.

Rape is basically legal, even if convicted they get a slap on the wrist. At least if they were honest about this, more women would know what the real situation is.

That’s one of the many reasons, by the way, that I can’t understand this verdict. Regardless of her state of conciousness, the girl was clearly, extremely intoxicated. All witnesses agreed to that fact. Is this not an open-and-shut case?

Because she picked a very, very bad lawyer. No, I’m not blaming her. If her husband did not appear, it should have been a default. IF she lived in a fault-based-divorce state, that’s why you have to go through telling the judge why your marriage was awful, because you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your marriage is farblonzhet. (This is why no-fault divorce is a Good Thing.)

Violet Socks, I realize that was just a f’r instance, but I fail to understand how making that women watch the rape tape would have any effect of proving she was conscious, or consenting, or any other probative value

In this case? I don’t know either. A few people over on Feministe seem not to get the idea that if evidence contradicts a witness, that doesn’t automatically mean the witness is lying.

If you’re asking ‘why on earth would you ever do such a thing?’, because there’s nothing patriarchal about a rule that says “If a witness says X, and some piece of admissible evidence shows they are lying, you can show it to them to attack their credibility’. Sometimes this is a good thing–e,g., the accused rapist swears he had the victim’s consent, and the prosecutor confronts him with a blog post he made where he brags about how hard she fought him.

From the legal point of view, you don’t shift the rules depending on which side you find more sympathetic. Luckynkl gave some excellent examples of the kind of things that happen when lawyers or judges blow off the rules because they don’t like the people they apply to.

I’m not a criminal lawyer, so maybe I’m missing something. OTOH, for most lawyers the fallback position *is* “maybe there is a good reason, I need to know all the facts.” The only thing this does is create another barrier to attacking the patriarchal basis of law, especially rape law. If you don’t know all the facts — STFU. Especially if you’re a laywer. Because speaking in defense of the law from a privileged position as part of the law makes changing the law even more difficult. It entrenches the status quo. *You’re* entrenching the status quo by defending the law without all the facts while simultaneously admonishing those who are attacking the law wkithout all the facts.

As for the acquittal — how suprising is it, really? If anything she said contradicted, or apparently contradicted, what was on the tape she’s automatically a lying slut. And if it’s on tape, it’s pornography. And if it’s pornography she must have wanted to be in it.

You’re pretty close. Only 1% of rapists see the inside of a courtroom, and only 1% of that 1% ever see the inside of a jail cell, even tho the DOJ reports that 98% of women that report rape have indeed been raped. According to their statistics (last I looked), only 2% of women falsely accuse. But to listen to the media and all their woeful tales about men being falsely accused of rape, you’d think it was the other way around. The public is being intentionally led to believe the opposite of what is actually occurring. Which unjustly and despicably influences and affects the legal system’s and public’s attitudes towards women who claim they have been raped.

Even when rapists get up on the stand and cockily admit that that they have raped and assaulted a woman, it’s not uncommon for judges to act as tho they didn’t hear what he said or else pretend it’s about as big of a deal as stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar. I know cuz I sat right there in a courtroom and watched it.

In a Colorado courtroom, a rapist admitted to the rape he was accused of and the judge let him walk out of the courtroom a free man. The judge stated that since the rapist had told the truth and said he was sorry, there was no reason to punish him any further. I wish I was joking, but I’m not.

In still another case, a dear friend of mine went to court to finalize her divorce. Her husband didn’t show up. The divorce should’ve been automatic. There were no children or property involved. There was nothing to challenge or contest. So my friend was stunned when her lawyer put her up on the stand anyways and demanded that she tell the entire courtroom, which was full of people, how her husband had sexually humiliated and degraded her. She just stared at him in disbelief. The judge asked her did she want the divorce or not? If she did, then answer the lawyer’s question. She refused to and got up and walked out of the courtroom. The judge did grant her the divorce but that’s not the point. Why was it demanded that she degrade and humiliate herself in front of an entire courtroom when there was no reason to? Other than to provide the males in the courtroom with some new porn material for that X rated movie they constantly have going on in those warped little heads of theirs