Is Sexual History Relevant in Sex-Assault Cases?

14/1/02

Of course it is!

USA This argument was crippled by Judge William Wetzel's decision to exclude portions of the e-mail correspondence between Jovanovic and Rzucek in which she discussed her adventures in SADOMASOCHISM, including her sadomasochistic relationship with another man. The messages, the judge held, were inadmissible under New York State's rape shield law because they had to do with the accuser's sexual conduct. Cathy Young

And this exemplifies the kind of thing that is happening all over the western world whereby many men and women play out their fantasies (and not necessarily sexual ones) of him being dominant and she being submissive but which then turn very sour when the relationship breaks up, for whatever reason, and when the woman then later describes their antics, out of context, and suggests that these were examples of his violence and/or of his attempts to control her.

Indeed, many women, fully aware of the current CORRUPT laws, take even further advantage of them by encouraging such behaviours knowing that they can finally be used as weapons whenever they feel like it.

This is similar to the well-known con-trick of young girls below the age of consent making themselves look much older and then prostituting themselves shortly after which many of their customers are then threatened for having had sex with minors. (There's a fortune being made from this.)

courts are supposed to get at the truth. This is one of their major functions.

But courts are supposed to get at the truth. This is one of their major functions. A court cannot operate justly if it is not allowed to get at the truth.

As such, a woman's sexual history is most certainly relevant to cases involving sex-assault, and especially so if the defendant was aware of her history or if he, himself, was actually involved in it.

Juries of ordinary men and women believe that a woman's sexual history (particularly that history associated directly with the accused man) is most definitely relevant in these cases - and this, perversely, is exactly why many jurisdictions have decided to exclude such history from the evidence!

It's absolutely astonishing.

How much more corrupt can a justice system get

How much more corrupt can a justice system get than when it purposely excludes evidence that a jury, and the defendant, and most of the population, would deem highly relevant to a trial!?

In her article Cathy Young says, "In surveys, about three-quarters of Americans agree that a woman's past sexual life should not be an issue in a rape case."

But these surveys are misleading because they only deal with generalities.

For example, Cathy Young goes on to say, "Indeed, it seems obvious that to quiz a woman who says she was raped about whether she has had two, 10, or 20 sexual partners is not only cruel and degrading but irrelevant to the question of whether she consented to sex with the man in the dock."

But, in many cases, this is just not so.

Imagine, for example, that a man is charged with sexually assaulting a woman in his car outside the nightclub on a Friday night.

He claims that the sex was consensual.

Now imagine that the woman's sexual history (unknown to the jury) includes, among other things, the fact that she regularly has sex with whomsoever comes her way, two or three times every Friday night somewhere around the nightclub.

Should this not colour the case completely?

Of course it should.

At the very least, it gives some indication of the amount of psychological harm that such an (alleged) event is likely to have had on the woman (precious little in this case) and it also gives some indication of what the man thought was happening at the time, and it also gives some indication of the way in which this woman was likely to have been behaving.

Sexual history is relevant for at least three reasons.

1. It might well shed a great deal of light on the general behaviour of the woman with regard to the incident in question. (And this works both ways. For example, the accuser might be a woman of genuine virtue who never gave any indication that she wanted any sex with anyone, let alone with the man who, allegedly, violated her.)

2. It might well reveal something of her attitude, and of her vulnerability, toward sex. (And this works both ways too, in that some women would most certainly be traumatised by even the smallest of incidents.)

3. It might well give some idea of what the defendant was actually believing about the situation at the time of the incident.

Furthermore, it is also well worth remembering that the vast majority of accusations of rape are made by women against men whom they know.

And, in many cases, they have had sexual relations with them for some time.

Such people are often involved very intimately and passionately with each other. They fight, they argue, they misperceive, they misunderstand, they hurt, they attack, and so on and so on. It is almost impossible to figure out what went on between such people.

And yet, in these most difficult - and most serious - of cases, the courts actually deny the jury some of the most important facts!

How much more corrupt can you get?

As such, the notion that the justice system in these cases is even attempting to administer justice is nothing more than a cruel hoax perpetrated upon the general public.

Indeed, the legal profession's willingness to hide important evidence from juries in serious criminal cases demonstrates just how dishonest and corrupt those who work in the legal system have now become.

And this includes the judges.

Also see, ...

Judges

Showing Knickers in Courtroom Leads to Suicide