@ She-Ra

unfortunately, alot of lawyers uses a woman's sexual history, to their
advantage in cases of rapes & sexual assaults. they try to show the
court room a pattern or so-called pattern of the person who is bringing
the case to light.

as we heard many times before, it's the way the woman/women were
dress, the type of environment, her behavior, any history of such type
of behavior and so on.

hell, she could have been a prostitute, a former prostitute, a porn star,
former porn star, a drug attic, or a homeless female, looking for a place
to lay her head or spare change at that.

this is how, lawyers discredit the allege victim(s). they paint a tainted
picture for the court(s) & make it seem like she brung this on themselves.
at the same time, a women/women should question family ( females ) cousins & girlfriends, in how they act when they drink up.

that way, they can get a whole another pic of themselves, when out
having a good time. maybe, they might tone down the consumption of
the alcohol.

even when there is no alcohol or drugs in involved, the same rule applies.
you can go out on a date with a woman who is still a VIRGIN, who is not
ready to go all the way. even if, she allows you to kiss her and put your
arms around her.

if she wants to RESERVED herself for marriage, that is her CHOICE and
NOT YOURS. this is where alot of men fail to realize this important bit of
information.

HER BODY IS HER BODY.

NOT YOURS.

 

@ Milo Cronos

I AGREE

everyone of us, should remember the La Crosse team in NORTH CAROLINA
involving the stripper. then, you had a school teacher in VIRGINIA who
was lied on by a student. the student, wanted to get revenge on the teacher for punishing her.

the student told a friend of her plan. UNFORTUNATELY, the teacher was
FALSELY ACCUSED, LOST HIS JOB. the teacher can't teach anywhere, the
wife has a hard time getting a job too. all because who her husband is, and
the false allegations against him.

the student and her family, had to move to another county ( maybe state ) altogether, all because the student LIED !!!!. :wall:

the student even had DEATH THREATS against her.

people need to be careful in making FALSE CLAIMS. you can really DESTROY a persons life.

 

IfI even think a women(or man)is even thinking no but saying yes I am done.If I also think their not in the right frame of mind I am done.Sex is too easy to get to take any chances.BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY

 

I don't understand where a lawyer is able to bring up a womens history. Is this permissible? Usually a case is based on the facts of the current allegation and i cant find (where i live anyway) where that would be allowed in a court of law. If as you say a woman's history is brought up in court, then the mans history would have to be allowed in as evidence as well. In this case, did he ever buy a woman a drink and have sex with her afterwards. So i don't think it would be allowed.

This particular case, both had drink taken, the prosecutor would be taking that into account when deciding if the case will go forward. That the women voluntarily went with him for what seemed the purpose of a sexual encounter would weaken the states case a lot. The chances are very low that this case will proceed into a courtroom. It most likely (in rare cases it wont) will be dropped long before then.

 

Allow me to possibly facilitate a defense for the man for this discourse. The man is charged with statutory criminal sexual conduct (statutory rape). The man reported in an affidavit that he and she were mutually intoxicated when they had sex. Evidential test result has proved that the defendant and the accused were both tested to be inebriated at the scene by the police. Because the man and the woman were intoxicated, neither the woman nor the man gave legal consent to have sex. Both were mentally incapacitated on the night of the incident.

Litigating the incapacitation argument might be an affirmative mitigating defense for the man in a court of law. Unfortunately, to argue incapacitation as a defense, a Jury might have difficulties believing the man was too drunk to have sex when he got erection and got penetration into the woman’ vagina. But the rape examination did not give confirmation of copulation between the man and the women; instead, it confirmed that the woman only had sex.
The presence of the man’s semen was tested inconclusive by the medical examiner. If the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the act of sexual intrusion by the man that is defined by statute; for example, the mouth, the vagina, or the anus, the man cannot be convicted of rape, an element for a rape conviction.


However, what about the man’s affidavit statement admitting to sexual intercourse (people do talk to the police because anything you say will be used against you in a court of law)? Because of man’s affidavit statement, an attorney must formulate a defense; my client was tested to be intoxicated on the night of the incident by the police, using equipment that met legal requirement. His judgment to give an accurate affidavit statement was extremely impaired from imbibing legal alcohol intoxicants, resulting in his memory deficiency of the details of that night.


Retention!!! It might be the best defense for the man. Either the woman or the man did not remember the details of the night because they were intoxicated, it certainly makes for a weak case for the DA's Office to successfully prosecute the man for rape. If the woman did not remember the incident, how can she get on the stand and say that she did not consent.
The burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Arguably, the fact that she did not remember the sexual encounter between her and the man provide the jury with reasonable doubt. Consequently, the DA's Office has offered a plead bargain of probation without jail. The man refused the probation offer because he believes he is innocent of the crime. Would you accept a plea bargain?

 

The man is right to refuse to plea bargain. Prooving rape in court is very difficult. Just look at the figures for conviction against the number of original allegations. I cannot see how the prosecution will take this case any further given the details that have been supplied.

 

A man truly does have the right to refuse a plea bargain but, should the tactical tricks of the prosecution work such as; dressing her down to a younger more naive look or instructing her to "act" more innocent (and they do!) If convicted wrongfully he'll spend the rest of his life labeled as a "rapist" destroying ties with family, friends and peers that even if "proven innocent" at a later time people will have their doubts because men are like that (as the story goes) There's no easy answer after accusations of this nature of sexual crimes, there just is not!

 

Yes the allegation itself can have long repercussions for an innocent man. neither of us were there and it may be the fact that anal sex took place that has to do with the allegation being taken as far as it has. I dont know if it is like here but not even a peep of the allegation nor the people involved will usually be made public. Unless they are from a religious order it seems now that i think of it. In general, here where i live, it would not even get public until the allegation is prooven

 

lizbeth0

it has happen. many times than you think. i use to watch cases on a cable
network called " Court TV. ( now called ) Tru TV. this show was or
maybe still is. the host was a prosecutor name NANCY GLASS.

a very gutless/ruthless prosecutor. a defense lawyer, whether male or female, is to prove his/her clients INNOCENCE.

REGARDLESS, whether they think the allege suspect is guilty. lets say, the
defense lawyer is a woman. even if, there is significant evidence against
her client & she can't stand to represent him, her job is to prove him
INNOCENT. PERIOD !!.

there was a case in the '90's ( i think ) where, a neo-nazi or klansman
killed a black person, & the lawyer for the klansman was BLACK.
the black community was out rage that, a BLACK LAWYER, would
represent such a person. a klansman at that.

it's called GREEN. the color of green. PERIOD. it's not about what the
person has done. it's about can i win, can i get paid. TRUST ME.
a prosecutor will dig very deep.

NOW, with social media, a prosecutor will obtain a warrant for her social
account and read posted messages on her wall to her friends. will go as far, to show any & all embarrassing pics too.

from being drunk, high, or skimpy dressed too. if she has written or made
some sexual inuendo ( if spelled correctly ), the lawyer will use that as
potential evidence as well.

( for example ) look how many times where, a former porn star turned
teacher, was found years later teaching a student. all of a sudden the
teacher is terminated.

should a former porn star pass, be an legit excuse for firing her ?. even if,
it may have very well been 15-20 years ago. is it fair to hold that
against her ?. what about a stripper, who sent herself to school to become
a lawyer or politician ?.

should that be used against her, for running for public office ?.

think about it.

 

Hi there,
It would seem we are from different places in what is permissible in a court. In the case of alleged rape here, neither the defense not the prosecution are permitted to allow either persons past in as evidence. Any attempt to do so would be prohibited by the judge overseeing the case. The case is solely dependent on the allegation before the court. In sentencing then the past can be taken into account. I would have thought that it would be the same in most western democracies. It saddens me that a woman's appearance/ past and current activities would be taken into account. It is a backward notion but i will have to take your word that it is permissible in your court system.
By the same rule then the perpetrators history (sexual or violence) and past/current activities of comments and innuendo of what he says on FB would be taken into account as well? You cant have a law for one and not the other i assume. Is that the way in the US?

The whole ex prostitution/porn actor is a different matter here to alleged rape.
With regard a person moving forward in their life to become a teacher. Having a past in porn/ prostitution then it would depend on if they were forthright in their application for a position. If they neglected to pass on this information during their interview process then they did not tell the truth of what they had done before becoming a teacher. This would be grounds for dismissal.
As for running for public office, then every person's past is usually made public knowledge (weather they want it or not). For public office then the voters decide if that person is suitable. It is not a decision usually made by one but a majority decision by many as to how people feel about that persons past. If it doesnt bother them and they feel this person is capable of doing a good job then they will vote that person in

 

In Australian the word RAPE is a common law term, because of difficulties with that many years ago they stepped away and formed various charges classifying them as forms of Assault.

In my current home state NSW "sexual intercourse without consent" is the definition for the most serious and what people think of as rape.

WITHOUT being the key word becasue it took away the issues of drug and alcohol influence. If a woman does not actually consent to every act then it is rape, if she was so intoxicated at the time it occured (regardless of what it is claimed was siad earlier) she can not give consent therefore the male would correctly be charged.

And I see no problem with that perspective being taken by law enforcement.

 

I shall try to let you see the things from another perspective...

If a woman decides to get "wasted" by the booze in a public place, then she... ASKS for it!
As long as, instead of going to a liquor store and buy booze to drink at home, alone, under the protection of her home, she prefers a bar, or pub, or whatever, she... ASKS for it!

It is, as a "forced" parallel, like getting drunk and then trying to drive a car...
If you do it, you need to also take the chances!... :wall:

Anyway, honestly, I don't like the way the world has "developed"...
Why is the man guilty if she, being under influence, asks him to fuck her brains out, then, after getting sober, she claims it's been rape?!?

NOTE: You cannot even imagine how many hoes I've seen asking for dick while being (or pretending to be!) "out of control"!!!

 

lizbeth0

when you go to trial, there are certain things allowed into the proceedings,
when the judge, defense, & prosecution are in the judges chambers.
far as what is allowed case by case, and the severity of the charge/crime itself.

here in the U.S., it also vary by state to state. prosecutors can ( and will )
use a person's pass against them in cross examination. it is up to the lawyer and judge to keep that information to be brung up in court.

although, the lawyers may want to show the jurors and court, a certain
type of pattern/behavior a person/party may indulge in. this is a very
GREY AREA for both sides in the court of law.

one side side wants to present the evidence into questioning, while the
other side wants to suppress such evidence, which can hurt a clients
case. a person's FB can help or damage a clients case too.

if a person is addicted to hours & hours of watching porn, doesn't make
them an actual rapists or some sexual predator. it means, he/she may
a bad habit of watching porn alot.

the same goes, with watching violent movies or playing violent video games. does either one make you into a killer or violent prone ?.

( depends on the individual(s) state of mental health )

far as the school teacher thing, i feel a former porn star turned teacher,
should not have to REVEAL such matter. if she's trying to close that
chapter in her life, than, allow her to do so in peace & incognito.

i agree, if a woman is too intoxicated to make a wisw decision, than, the
parties should be held accountable. but, it would be more on the grounds of sexual assault/battery, than rape itself.

i say that, due to alcohol/drugs may have played a role in it, to where the
victim may have been lead into the act itself.

 

And with those few simple paragraphs I know you are truely a fuckwit!!

 

I don't know much about this expect from what I see on TV, especially on Law & Order: SVU and, according to one episode, if a woman is intoxicated with either drugs or alchool, she is incapable of conseting, wich means having sex with her is rape. Or at least will be, as soon as she wakes up and realizes she's regretful.

But you bring up a good point. If the man was the intoxicated one, he'd probably still be viewed as a player, a ladies man, whereas the woman is always the victim. I didn't give much thought to it but this seems like one example of things that feminist groups prefer to omit in their speeches and stuff.

 

@ Ovid58

i have a long time PLATONIC FRIEND. we would hang out together at
times. she would have a one or two drink MINIMUM of alcohol. she has
ALWAYS stated that, if she ever was to get drunk, she would do it
behind closed doors of her place.

that way, if anything was to happen, she would know who was there
and could take action. it makes sense to me. at least you would know
who was in your place of residence if such an act was to happen.

 

@ nateriver10

( NOT SOUNDING SEXIST )

women will ALWAYS have the upper hand. PERIOD.

a man can be INTOXICATED, go home or somewhere with a woman,
and have sex. he can wake up the next morning and not feel ashame or
not remember anything about the night before.

where as with a woman, she will feel dirty, sick, ashame too. it's more
about the self-respect, reputation, & etc., she may have establish for
yourself.

she may not want friends, family, colleagues, neighbor's, to see her in a whole different light. she may think, about what she has/had done altogether to for such a situation to take place.

now, this where the TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION comes into
play. your looking at ( depending on nature & severity of the allege crime ). you may be looking at sexual assault using under the influence of a controlled/uncontrolled substance.

a can ( or may ) use this as her defense. she may have wanted to have
a good time. but, may not have wanted to go as far as sex with you.
she will say, i might have had too much. but, you should have known better to take advantage of me scenario.

also, she ( or they ) ( the court/lawyers ), will ask you is that her when
sober ?. if not, they will try to show how you used that to get her into bed, to have sexual relations with her.

this GREY AREA, is where ALL MEN, need to be careful. some states will
make you take a plea deal to a minor assault charge with probation, suspended sentence, or a lower level of a sex crime/offense or a
MINOR SEX OFFENSE.

AGAIN, it varies from state to state. you can FUCK YOURSELF & LIFE
on such a deal. it is best that, to leave her all alone. no matter how
much you want to fuck her.

 

You're bringing my intellect into it, with your spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax?

I can only speak for the law in Ireland. And the legislation here is that a woman's sexual history has absolutely no bearing on a rape case.

Likewise, if you were on trial for stealing a car, the fact that you'd stolen 20 cars previously would not be permissible in evidence. Every case has to stand (or fall) on its own merits.

Where previous convictions come in is in sentencing. If you were found guilty of stealing that car as a standalone case, the judge would then take into account your previous criminal history when sentencing you.

If you were convicted of rape, your previous criminal record (or lack thereof) and any other mitigating circumstances, including the context of the offence, would come in to play. Your victim's sexual history doesn't come into it, unless she has been proven to have made false allegations in the past, and rightly so. If a woman has had 99 sexual partners, a rape by the 100th does not imply any culpability on her part.

The mind boggles. So drunkenness = complicity, in your head???

 

This is how a perfectly open discussion turns into an unintelligent mess, when we sling violent words we show just how low our intellect and decorum truly is and very unbecoming of an educated man? Bad Form Sir!

 

In America darling the lawyer is one step "below the belly of the snake" looking for loopholes but, as I've stated her history should only be brought into play if accusations have existed in the past as for possible motives of a fraud? Hopefully something to think about, Milo