[P-Marlowe]

Funny how merely stating the facts gets some all riled up, though, with them making assumptions and all.

I advocate for the facts and the truth to come out at trial and I am accused of being a Rah Rah boy for Kobe (I hate the Lakers and everything they stand for-- Go Kings!) and giving aid and comfort to rapists everywhere. What is wrong with these people that want to strip a man of his right to a defense against the type of charge that any one of us could be falsely accused of?

I have personally seen a boatload of false sexual harrassment claims in my practice. People lie about that at least as often as they lie about back and neck injuries. This woman clearly has something to gain from these charges, so the charges need to be scrutinized and the evidence needs to come in.

When the sole issue before the jury is whether or not a woman gave consent to a sexual act with a stranger after voluntarily playing tounge hockey with him in his hotel room, it is highly relevant, indeed crucial, to discover whether or not she had done the same or similar things in the past. It is an issue of credibility. She says she didn't consent, he said she did. If she had never given consent to casual sex before, then her testimony would be incredibly strong. However, the more casual sex she had, the more likely it would have been for her to have actually given consent to Kobe.

You can bet that if she was a virgin before this incident, that the prosecution would get that evidence in. And the evidence of that fact would be critical. Wouldn't the fact that she was a virgin before this incident be evidence of her sexual history? And wouldn't it be relevant to the issue of consent? And should evidence of that type be excluded as well? I don't think so. To deprive the victim of the opportunity to prove that she had never had casual sex before would be just as wrong as depriving the defendant in this case from being allowed to show that she made a habit of it.

[cyncooper]

Hey, I'm on record as saying bring it in. I don't object to her name being used or her sexual history being presented. Accurately.

You'll get no quarrel from me on your complaint.

[Sabertooth]

I advocate for the facts and the truth to come out at trial and I am accused of being a Rah Rah boy for Kobe (I hate the Lakers and everything they stand for-- Go Kings!) and giving aid and comfort to rapists everywhere.

The purpose of rape-shield laws is to prevent rapists everywhere from going on fishing expeditions through their victims' private lives.

If you advocate dropping rape-shield laws, the very real consequence is that you are enabling rapists.

What is wrong with these people that want to strip a man of his right to a defense against the type of charge that any one of us could be falsely accused of?

This is a nonsense premise.

It's patently false that "any one of us could be falsely accused of" rape. Avoid casual sex, avoid adultery, and don't put yourself in positions where you're alone with women you don't know, and your odds of running into Potiphar's wife or her modern counterparts, will diminish to nearly zero.

I have personally seen a boatload of false sexual harrassment claims in my practice.

Apples and oranges. The adjudication process is usually different, and the standard of proof is much lower. We don't even have a widely held definition of what sexual harassment is.

We do understand what rape is.

Either way, the solution is simple: make the penalty for the premeditated filing of a false charge, in all crimes, equivalent to whatever it would have been if the accused had been guilty.

Obviously, aquittal of the initial defendent would not mean the initial accusation was deliberately false; a second trial would be required.

That's a better solution to preventing false rape accustations, rather than arming rapists with the ability to humiliate their victim under the color of the authority of the courts.