Replies

Just like the "rape shield" laws are.

I HONESTLY believe that they were put in place long ago(I don't really know how long), to protect a victim from having some prior consensual sexual act used to say "she wanted it", and thus, get the case thrown out of court. If such a history were allowed to be used against a rape victim, then, few, if any such rape trials could proceed, even in those cases where the evidence was clear-cut, INCLUDING DNA.

HOWEVER-- NOW, those same "rape shield" laws are being used to DENY ANY defense by the alleged perpetrator of the rape, such as a history of FALSE ALLEGATIONS, or HARASSMENT or pretty much ANYTHING the "victim"may have done in the past.

And now, it looks like even DNA will NOT be permitted anymore as a way to clear the accused. All that seems to be neeeded nowdays, is the word of the accuser,(even if it is "I originally consented, but a couple of weeks later, I changed my mind, and now, I believe it is rape) and some agenda from the prosecuter, and a salted jury. If all of this is allowed to continue, we will get to the the point where it is::

SHE SAID, and now, HE has to PROVE he DIDN'T do it!!

Just like the "rape shield" laws are.

I am a little confused about this topic...maybe you or someone can help me out.

I believe that the delicate discretion of the media is voluntary and it is time to lean on the media about the hideous unfairness that their high-minded ethics are doing in this case.

The shield laws are something different, right? Do they protect the woman from courtroom inquiry into her past?

Some people have claimed that the alleged rapers could have used condoms. But why did they take DNA samples from 46 players on the team if they had nothing to compare it to? Presumably, the rape kit would have shown some foreign DNA in the stripper. If there had been no DNA on her, then there would have been no reason to test the 46 other guys.