Sunday, October 16, 2016

Sexual histories are relevant

As usual, feminists want to decouple female actions from consequences:
Both witnesses said she behaved with them in detailed sexual terms as Evans had claimed she did with him. And so the judge agreed that evidence of the woman’s sexual history could be admitted. I believe this will have a devastating impact on victims – and that it will in future stop them coming forward for fear of what they face in court.

I was part of a research team in 2003 that monitored the effectiveness of the laws preventing routine cross examination of a complainant’s sexual history. I sat through a number of rape trials and heard the flimsy reasons used by defence barristers when arguing that the judge should make an exception and allow the jury to listen to salacious details about the complainant’s sex life.

In our research, judges granted permission in two-thirds of the cases that we observed and did allow sexual history evidence, which was raised even in some cases involving children.

It has been widely reported it is rare for previous sexual history evidence to be admitted as evidence, but this is blatantly untrue. I hear regular stories from friends and colleagues that work in Rape Crisis and other support services of their clients being grilled in the witness box about their sex lives. Sexual histories are already dragged up and they already have a chilling effect on victims’ willingness to come forward. The Ched Evans case has made this many times worse.
They should have a chilling effect. That's a positive thing, because it will prevent more false accusations like the one that Ched Evans's accuser made.

In fact, there should be more chilling effects, such as jail terms for women who make false rape accusations.

There is an easy way for women to not have a sexual history that calls their testimony into doubt. Don't be a drunken slut, and then people will be much more likely to believe you.

12 comments:

tweell said...

Past performance may not be indicative of future behavior, but it's generally the way to bet!

chris said...

Case 1: Allegation of rape by plaintiff against defendant.
Null hypothesis: Defendant is not guilty. (Purpose of trial is to determine guilt. Guilt is determined once positive evidence in favour of it reaches a threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.)
False Positive: Plaintiff is found guilty when he is innocent.
False Negative: Plaintiff is found innocent when he is guilty.

Case 2: Allegation of false accusation by plaintiff against defendant.
Null hypothesis: Defendant is not guilty. (Purpose of trial is to determine guilt. Guilt is determined once positive evidence in favour of it reaches a threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.)
False Positive: Plaintiff is found guilty when she is innocent.
False Negative: Plaintiff is found innocent when she is guilty.

Feminists are concerned with increasing the probability of a false positive in case 1 but argue against criminalizing false accusations in case 2 because of the risk of a false positive. They are legal hypocrites.

dc.sunsets said...

Case in point the lunatic left misunderstands:

The rape trial of Nate Parker & his Roommate at Penn State. The stupid 18 year old mudshark, cool for consesually sucking a black athlete's dick one day had trouble convincing a jury that when she later got pass-out drunk waiting for another "date" with him that getting double-teamed (complete with STD parting gift) wasn't "rape."

I love it when leftist tropes collide. It's such a paradox-rich environment.

manuel hernandez said...

I don't see why past sexual history wouldn't have to do in a trial, or for that matter, in other facets of life. After all, we are witnessing a presidential election where past sexual history is being played out a bit too much, whether it being Bill Clinton banging other women or Donald Trump making comments about grabbing pussy. So it's only fair.

liberranter said...

Don't be a drunken slut, and then people will be much more likely to believe you.

Indelible common sense tells us that being a habitual drunken slut all but erases the possibility of ever being the victim of actual rape, as that term has always historically been defined and understood. This is something that even feminists viscerally understand - thus their desperate, ludicrous attempts at contorting both language and legal logic.

hank.jim said...

Campus administrations are bypassing the court system. Increasingly, men should sue for justice.

dc.sunsets said...

Colleges are enemy territory. Men should know that going in, if college is a necessary component of the man's preferred path.

Hammerli280 said...

Ladies, this is why you stay sober...and cary a firearm if legally possible. In the event of an honest-to-goodness rape attempt, you have positive ID...he's the guy with his pants down and three bullet holes in him.

Tom K. said...

Modern secular feminists just can't grasp the idea of a fallen world with evil people in it and her and her sisters needing the protection of good men.

Western civilization has created for the first time an environment where a woman need depend on no man for anything. The patriarchal government is her husband now with all of the duties and none of the benefits of providing that covering. And nothing is required of her to receive it except to DEMAND it. It is the government's job to protect her from all the forces of nature arrayed against her. Whether paying for her and her children's food and shelter or protecting her and them from what real men might do to her. In all of this she looks to Hubby Sam for her succor and proudly stand athwart the City Gates declaring:

I DON'T NEED NO MAN!

Yet look how quickly that arrogance is humbled when just one of the many arms of her corporate husband withdraws its protection!

Bike Bubba said...

It's worth noting that in the U.S., most sexual assault defendants cannot bring up past sexual history. In the U.S., it's called "rape shield laws". However, it is worth noting that even where strong rape shield laws exist, a great portion of sexual assaults are committed when the victim is intoxicated. So if one doesn't desire to be raped, whatever one's sex is, one might do well to avoid getting plastered around people you don't know, or for that matter even among people you do.

Boab Coyle said...

nanny state creates adult babies who think responsibility and caution are "patriarchal abuse"...what a surprise.

Jed Mask said...

Smh... Fornication, fornication, fornication... Leads to nothing but *WOE* and *SORROW*. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.