Helter said: And YET AGAIN you're ignoring my question, how do you expect it to be proved whether she said "no" or not?
Hey, a lot of the time there is no way to prove it, and that's to bad. A lot of times it ends up a he said/she said case. But the way to fix that is not to turn the accuser into the criminal.
Morgan said: No, I'm not saying that if a man rapes one woman he'll raped them all. But it does answer the question "could this person commit rape?". Where in the case of an accusers sexual history, the only question that a promiscious past answers is that the accuser has the ability to have sex and has in the past. It does not answer the question "could this person lie about being raped?".
But the question isn't "is this person lying" the question is "did this person consent".
Morgan said:
Hey, a lot of the time there is no way to prove it, and that's to bad. A lot of times it ends up a he said/she said case. But the way to fix that is not to turn the accuser into the criminal.
So what should they do in a "he said/she said" case?
Yes, but again, if someone has consented in the past to have sex with hundreds of people, that doesn't change whether or not they consented to one person in specific.
Morgan said: Yes, but again, if someone has consented in the past to have sex with hundreds of people, that doesn't change whether or not they consented to one person in specific.
if a person has raped hundreds of people, that doesn't change whether or not they raped this one specific person.
levezletoi said: Again, you are right on the money. Also in Ohio, right now, If a man buys a women a drink then has consentual sex he has by Ohio law raped her. [Edited on Sep 12, 2003 by levezletoi]
Actually, what it says is:
"No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception."
It's about how the courts interpret the law on a case by case basis. The example you give sounds like the guy needed a better lawyer. There's no way the state had a case. Oh, and he should have used a goddamn condom.
And yeah, you've been pretty fucking rude. Welcome to SG.
Thanks smokepuppet. I knew that's the way the law was written where I am but I wasn't sure about Ohio. Thanks for pointing out that there's a difference between innocently buying someone a drink and buying someone drinks for the purpose of making them impaired enough to be taken advantage of.
i think the difference is that being promiscuous is legal behavior and causes harm to no one, so it's about as relevant to a case as whether or not she baked cookies before going to work that day.
Morgan said: Geez. I didn't say it did mean that. I said it meant that that person is CAPABLE of raping.
and if a woman had sex with the man in question it shows that she's CAPABLE of consenting to sex with that person. If she's been sexually promiscuous in the past it shows that she's CAPABLE of sexual promiscuity. In either case that's just as relevant.
s5 said: i think the difference is that being promiscuous is legal behavior and causes harm to no one, so it's about as relevant to a case as whether or not she baked cookies before going to work that day.
But baking cookies means that you want to have sex. At least that's what Freud told me!
s5 said: i think the difference is that being promiscuous is legal behavior and causes harm to no one, so it's about as relevant to a case as whether or not she baked cookies before going to work that day.
it's relevant in that it establishes past behavior, the same exact reason that a rapists history is relevant.
s5 said: i think the difference is that being promiscuous is legal behavior and causes harm to no one, so it's about as relevant to a case as whether or not she baked cookies before going to work that day.
Uh, no...it goes to prior acts and the likelihood that someone would engage in similar behavior. It's a credibility issue. Totally relevant.
Morgan said: I don't know what they should do. We should try and figure something out that doesn't turn the victim into the one on trial.
I never said I knew the solution. I just said that I believe the way it works now is unfair to victims.
Come on morgan, what do you think should be done. You MUST have an opinion. Let's have a scenario, you read in the paper that John has been accused of date raping Jane. Evidence shows that they did have sex, which John admits, but John claims that she consented. What should be done? Should he be put on trial for rape? Should charges be dropped because it's he said she said? what should be done?
Well first off you didn't list any source or link it, is it up to date? Is it even correct? Oh and I'm fucking rude? She can't or won't even call me by my full sceen name, said that I generalised inferring that it was bad while she was happily doing the same thing, didn't aknowledge any of my clearly made points on how they pertained to subject while going off on wild tangents of her own. And more. I consider that pretty "fucking rude".
No, it's not as relevant. Sexual promiscuity does not imply that the person should have sex with EVERYONE, or would consent to everyone. Having sex with a person once does not imply that you will want to have sex with them every time.
Being capable of having sex with a lot of people does not lower one's likelyhood to say no to one specific person. Being capable of having sex with a particular person does not mean that you will have sex with that person each time it's brought up.
Rape is not comparable to promiscuity. As s5 says, having a history of raping means that one has a history of breaking the law and being violent towards another person. There's quite a crowbar of seperation between that and a history of having sex a little more often than most people.
aren't people's past criminal records typically brought up during criminal cases? if that's the case, then i don't see why the crime of rape would be any different.
s5 said: aren't people's past criminal records typically brought up during criminal cases? if that's the case, then i don't see why the crime of rape would be any different.
that's irrellevant. criminal history is brought up to establish that a person has done those things in the past, and is therefore likely to do those things in the future. The same reason that sexual history is brought up in rape cases.
levezletoi said: Well first off you didn't list any source or link it, is it up to date? Is it even correct? Oh and I'm fucking rude? She can't or won't even call me by my full sceen name, said that I generalised inferring that it was bad while she was happily doing the same thing, didn't aknowledge any of my clearly made points on how they pertained to subject while going off on wild tangents of her own. And more. I consider that pretty "fucking rude".
"Do not attack the people who work on the site. If you have a generally negative attitude towards the site, the girls or the people who build the site we will probably ask you to move along to make room for people who might enjoy the site."
Morgan said: No, it's not as relevant. Sexual promiscuity does not imply that the person should have sex with EVERYONE, or would consent to everyone. Having sex with a person once does not imply that you will want to have sex with them every time.
Look at it this way, Morgan...who would a jury believe more in a "he said/she said" type of rape case, a hooker or a nun? It goes to credibility. It's not categorical evidence. It just goes to the credibility of the person making the allegation.
Helter said:
Come on morgan, what do you think should be done. You MUST have an opinion. Let's have a scenario, you read in the paper that John has been accused of date raping Jane. Evidence shows that they did have sex, which John admits, but John claims that she consented. What should be done? Should he be put on trial for rape? Should charges be dropped because it's he said she said? what should be done?
Helter, I am admitting that I don't have a solution. I hope that someday someone CAN come up with a system that is fair to both the accuser and the accused. As it stands now, I don't believe the system is fair.
Forgive me, but I still think promiscuity plays a role. Not so much in wheter or not the girl was raped, that's for certain. But in wheter or not the rapist was aware that he was commiting the offence. (Please feel free to interchange any pronoun that is sex specific.) That is why I think it is a mitigating factor. It has a little more to do with the situation than baking cookies. Sort of like if the man had a history of violent crime. That's a hell of a mitigating factor, I'd say.
Morgan said: No, it's not as relevant. Sexual promiscuity does not imply that the person should have sex with EVERYONE, or would consent to everyone. Having sex with a person once does not imply that you will want to have sex with them every time.
Look at it this way, Morgan...who would a jury believe more in a "he said/she said" type of rape case, a hooker or a nun? It goes to credibility. It's not categorical evidence. It just goes to the credibility of the person making the allegation.
Again, in many cases the credibility of the victim is so focused on that that point of the case is forgotten. It turns into a trial of the victim and not the person accused. This is the problem I have with the existing system.
WTF? Don't pull that card. Unless youre posting it for your own review. Just because you took your clothes off for this sight means you get to post by other rules than I? Well it probably does but I think that would be a gross misuse of any moderators powers.
Morgan
SUICIDEGIRL
Illinois, USA
SEP 12, 2003 03:41 PM