Rape Shield Laws & r/mensrights: Educate me.

xLadyVirgil · 2012-12-01T21:46:31+00:00

I think if a person has a history of false or unfounded rape allegations, than that could be taken as a legitimate offense.

However, what you're proposing is the exact reason that rape shield laws should exist. Just because someone is promiscuous does not mean they can't get raped. Hell, I'm a slut, and if I was raped and wanted to charge the person with rape, I wouldn't want the courts to bring up my history of cheating/sexual promiscuity to defend my rapist. In the scenario you proposed, I would ask- why would she accuse this man and not all the others?

Sad though it may be for the 'Bob' in your scenario, it may create a domino effect. Any promiscuous woman or man's spotty sexual past would be considered before the actual allegations of rape... which I believe could cause a lot of actual sex offenders to walk free.

Embogenous · 2012-12-02T03:33:39+00:00

Sue has a history of taking random guys home with her and has a reputation of being the bar "slut."

Do you have any evidence that women who frequently have consensual sex are less likely to be raped?

oneiorosgrip · 2012-12-01T22:22:54+00:00

This is one are in which I disagree with most of the other women I know. I don't think any evidence should be barred from rape cases. It's dishonest and deceitful to withhold evidence which could be used by either side, and in Rape cases that choice is selectively applied for the benefit of the accuser. These laws exist so that prosecutors don't have to do their jobs more than they exist to protect Rape victims.

For instance, if Bob had a history of nonsexual violence, (i.e., he was at that bar because the owner of the one down the street had kicked him out for repeatedly getting into fights with other guys) that history could be brought up in the case, and no one would be able to object to it. Even though it's not evidence that Bob is a rapist, it could as much contribute to a jury's opinion on whether or not he committed forcible rape as an accuser's sexual history could contribute to a jury's view opinion on whether or not she lied about being victimized. It would be on Bob's lawyer to successfully and articulately argue that a history of fighting with men does not indicate a violent or domineering attitude toward women. If Bob's fighting history included women, that could be used to counter any statement he made claiming an attitude of excluding women from violence.

It is better for the purpose of achieving a sincerely just ruling if evidence which is currently barred by rape shield laws were made admissible, but prosecutors were (as always) permitted to present in their closing statements (or using expert witnesses) arguments as to why said evidence doesn't detract from the credibility of the accuser. Arguments which feminist activists have presented should be sufficient as long as they are legitimate arguments. The arguments which convinced lawmakers to determine that the factors barred from use by rape shield laws are not legitimate evidence should be sufficient for courtroom use in rebuttal, rather than having laws which prevent jury members from being presented with evidence.

rightsbot · 2012-12-01T18:38:20+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Title	Rape Shield Laws & r/mensrights: Educate me.
Author	Puck_marin
Upvotes	6
Comments	19
Date	December 1, 2012 6:36 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1441pe/rape_shield_laws_rmensrights_educate_me/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/rape-shield-laws-rmensrights-educate-me.1007851 https://theredarchive.com/post/1007851

Comments