Comments on: Nebraska judge lacks clue re: Truth

By: Crys T

Crys T — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:34:07 +0000

Regarding the newspaper that printed the article: since when is it acceptable to print a rape victim’s name?

By: Belle O'Cosity

Belle O'Cosity — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:31:34 +0000

For anyone who happens to take a look back at this thread, there is some good news. The woman is not going to let this fly and has brought in a lawyer to fight the ruling. Sadly, she might now face jail for contempt of court. All I can say is I definitly hold that court in contempt, I guess I’ll have to go to.

http://www.49abcnews.com/news/2007/jul/11/woman_refuses_obey_judge_who_banned_word_rape_tria/

By: JD

JD — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 07:57:50 +0000

“A victimâ€™s past history is inadmissible. The only way youâ€™d ever get that in is in very unusual circumstances”

ok, I know I’m incredibly late in adding to this here, but I also happen to have a legal education, and while DBD’s discussion of elements and whatnot was more or less accurate, this particular statement is absolutely, completely, flat-out wrong.

The federal rules of evidence–and rape shield laws in general– state that evidence of the victim’s past sexual history is inadmissible UNLESS it is (1) past sexual conduct with the defendant, or (2) exclusion of the evidence would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.

Exception number 1 is a problem because you wind up with situations where the fact that a woman consented to sex *once* (or twice or whatever) can then be used to prove that she consented to sex *always* (because the male has the *right* to her sex for all time if she consented once).

Exception number 2 is the sneaky backdoor where *everything* about the victim’s sexual history gets to come in if “exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. What this essentially boils down to is that the defendant wishes to prove that he reasonably believed that the victim consented, so he introduced evidence that she is a whore because she has had consensual sex with other men, so it was perfectly reasonable for him to assume that she wanted to have sex with him, too, even though he didn’t bother to ask.

So, uh, if anyone comes back and reads this, that’s how “rape shield laws” “work” in practice, hope it was helpful.

By: Cruella

Cruella — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:05:41 +0000

We have a new system in the UK that’s really helping with rapes. We’ve decided that raping a twelve-year-old isn’t worth worrying about. We prefer to wait til our sickos get the chance to rape a two-year-old. Grab a sick-bag before you click this one:

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2007/07/twelve-year-old-was-asking-for-it.html

By: PhysioProf

PhysioProf — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:12:48 +0000

I strongly suspect it is a matter of willful ignorance.

By: delphyne

delphyne — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:25:14 +0000

Now I’ve posted over there and I *never* post at trolls’ blogs. The self-righteous whining is rather special though. Do these fuckers not read the rules or something?

By: maribelle

maribelle — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:21:02 +0000

PhysioProf–thank you for the kind words. But I defer to you–you led the charge. I just brought up the rear.

By: PhysioProf

PhysioProf — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:49:44 +0000

Maribelle, I just checked out what you posted at DBB’s blog. It was beautifully written and right on target.

By: maribelle

maribelle — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:27:54 +0000

I went to and added my two cents over there, too. For what it’s worth.

And PS doesn’t the moniker “Disgusted Beyond Belief” just scream neutrality?

By: Twisty

Twisty — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:22:48 +0000

“To put it more simply, the discussion in that thread was not about whether the judgeâ€™s decision was legally justifiable. The discussion was about whether it was patriarchal. And it was not up to youâ€“a relative newcomerâ€“to attempt to change the discussion.”

Hey PhysioProf, nice blaming.