My most unpardonable sin, it seems, is the insistence that she be treated fairly by the law and by the public. Dispute that as my motive all you like, but as the post above mine proves (and in every damned thread about this), our society hates rape victims.
100% bull.
Rape victims are given many more rights than any other plaintiff. Her name has been shielded, her history (except for the actual rape timeframe) has been shielded, her prior history of acts that reveal character aspects and motivations (prior rape allegations and suicide attempts) has been shielded. None of these things are allowed for evidence.
The reverse is not true at all for Bryant or anyone else accused of rape.
Also we have no doubt that people hate rapists so that doesn't have to be debated. For every person that has called her a slut bag there are probably people who have called Bryant a dog, manwhore, adulterer, etc. Just because it didn't happen in this thread doesn't mean he didn't hear boo's and names in every NBA city, or by people walking past him daily or lose millions in endorsements on an accusation.
Her name has been shielded, her history (except for the actual rape timeframe) has been shielded, her prior history of acts that reveal character aspects and motivations (prior rape allegations and suicide attempts) has been shielded. None of these things are allowed for evidence.[/b]
You say "none" while pointing out that it is actually "some"?
Her name was not shielded, it was leaked on multiple occassions.
Her past is not shielded, it is admissable as evidence.
So all of that stuff you just said, not true at all.
Quote:
Also we have no doubt that people hate rapists so that doesn't have to be debated.
We hate poor rapists.
Quote:
For every person that has called her a slut bag there are probably people who have called Bryant a dog, manwhore, adulterer, etc.
How many death threats has Bryant got?
Is there a possibility that Bryant was forced over a chair and raped and then slandered in public, had people break into his house and threaten his life?
Did he not just sign one of the largets contracts in NBA history?
Is this a court of law? Why does "innocent until proven guilty" apply here?
"Is that all?"
That's all I've read. I am trying to work with the information given me and I have read a rape nurse say the injuries were consistent with rape.
If I were to read testimony from a doctor or rape nurse who examined her say the injuries were consistent with consensual sex I would take that into account.
My most unpardonable sin, it seems, is the insistence that she be treated fairly by the law and by the public. Dispute that as my motive all you like, but as the post above mine proves (and in every damned thread about this), our society hates rape victims.
Perhaps you don't wish to apply it here but I insist on doing so. I see no reason to take sides in the debate. The evidence will speak for itself. The unpardonable sin you have committed is affording the alleged victim more rights than the accused. That would be a clear violation of the equal protection clause in the constitution. If we are not going to hold up equal protection and due process in our own lives then how can we expect the state to do so?
This case, so far, has not followed the pattern of false accusation against a rich person for fame.
Only after a year of death threats and state bungling of the case as a civil case been hinted at. Athletes falsely accused are generally hit up for their bank account immediately (see: Michael Irvin).
Rape victims are given many more rights than any other plaintiff. Her name has been shielded, her history (except for the actual rape timeframe) has been shielded, her prior history of acts that reveal character aspects and motivations (prior rape allegations and suicide attempts) has been shielded. None of these things are allowed for evidence.
Hold your horses Trumpty! While I do think anyone accused of a crime has the right to the full presumption of innocence no matter how damning the evidence until the verdict is in, she's not the one on trial here.
Let's take the sexual nature of the crime out of it. Say every night on my way home from work, I walk alone, in the dark, through a dangerous part of town. If I'm mugged one night, should my risk-taking behaviour diminish my attacker's responsibility.
Not AFAIC. You either have the right to walk the streets unmolested or you don't. Say it turns out that I have a long history of risk-taking behaviour, that I've been mugged several times before, and a psychiatric report says I enjoy being in the role of the victim. Should this be taken into account if the perpetrator is brought to trial? The answer's still no for me. I have a right to enjoy my personal safety. Stupid risks or psychological issues on my part aren't relevant to my attacker's inability to exercise proper impulse control.
There have been a series of incidents involving alleged sexual impropriety by football players in Oz over recent months. Invariably, my gut reaction is "the testosterone fuelled bastard is guilty". But this is pure bias and while that's fine as long as I'm just holding an opinion, it would be entirely inappropriate were I on the jury.
There was one incident in which a woman alleged she was gang raped by 5 football players. The charges were eventually dropped (they always are). I suspect she was a football groupie and I think her decision to accompany them alone to their hotel room when they were fired up after a game and full of booze, was monumentally stupid on her part. However, this does not translate to she asked for it or diminish the men's guilt had the case gone to trial and they been convicted. Personal responsibility. The vast majority of males don't go around raping women so I don't see any reason to lower the bar for some. (Although I don't have a problem with relevant personal history from a convicted criminal's past being taken into account when sentencing them.)
Now remember what a reasonable person I am and be nice. If you think she's a slut and a gold digger you have the right to your opinion and I'm not going to call you names or make assumptions about your personal worth on the basis of it.
This case, so far, has not followed the pattern of false accusation against a rich person for fame.
Only after a year of death threats and state bungling of the case as a civil case been hinted at. Athletes falsely accused are generally hit up for their bank account immediately (see: Michael Irvin).
But again you miss my point. My point is not whether the rich, be they athletes or anyother type, have it easier. My point is that Kobe is innocent until the jury finds him guilty. Until then there are only accusations and forensic evidence. I've never spoken ill of this woman, perhaps she was raped. Perhaps she was raped by Mr. X and not Kobe. I don't know. But it is the job of the prosecution to show that Kobe did it and thus far from what has been leaked, it appears that the evidence does not support the accusation. See what's killing this case is not really what she did prior to meeting Kobe, it's what she apparently did afterwards. Women do not, in general have sex immediatly following being raped. If anything the consistent behavior would be that of fear of being touched and of any sexual intimacy for a while even from "trusted" people. Therefore her behavior after the encounter is highly relevant to the case and should not be withheld from the jury.
As for being hit up for money, in this case it makes sense that she would wait for after a criminal trial. A criminal trial, just like the OJ case brings out evidence that can then be used in a civil proceeding. Since the evidence in a criminal proceeding is placed under higher srutiny ( For what reason I don't understand), it is more likely to win a decision in a civil case. In summary, Criminal trials serve as discovery for a civil proceeding ( which I think, if a defendant is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding then they shoudl be immune from civil actions).
Again.. by your "rape shield" logic, any behavior not directly linked the the current situation under scrutiny should not be admissible at all. That would be equal treatment. For example:
If The woman in this case had a history of saying "no" but then engaging in sex anyway, then why should that not be admissible? I'm not saying she does this, but if we are going to dig into an innocent persons past to establish some kind of pattern, then the accused should be under the same hatchet.
Also reading that article, since no chartges were filed, there is no direct evidence to that behaviour. Did it happen? We really don't know? Has she ever been groped before? bY other players? Was that a common practice? Did she think nothing of it? You would be surprised what comes out under cross examination.
Hold your horses Trumpty! While I do think anyone accused of a crime has the right to the full presumption of innocence no matter how damning the evidence until the verdict is in, she's not the one on trial here.
Let's take the sexual nature of the crime out of it. Say every night on my way home from work, I walk alone, in the dark, through a dangerous part of town. If I'm mugged one night, should my risk-taking behaviour diminish my attacker's responsibility.
Not AFAIC. You either have the right to walk the streets unmolested or you don't. Say it turns out that I have a long history of risk-taking behaviour, that I've been mugged several times before, and a psychiatric report says I enjoy being in the role of the victim. Should this be taken into account if the perpetrator is brought to trial? The answer's still no for me. I have a right to enjoy my personal safety. Stupid risks or psychological issues on my part aren't relevant to my attacker's inability to exercise proper impulse control.
Now remember what a reasonable person I am and be nice. If you think she's a slut and a gold digger you have the right to your opinion and I'm not going to call you names or make assumptions about your personal worth on the basis of it.
A couple points, first rape is a crime of consent. It is a crime that could actually be legal while the sex is occuring and then become illegal the second she decides to say no. It is very different in that nature. It is different because the woman and her consent take an otherwise legal act and make it immediately illegal. Nothing about the mugging was ever legal
To make your example similar to rape we would need to change it to something like this. Suppose you were a bum and I was walking down the street. You are panhandling and ask me for some change. I freely give you a dollar however, I mentally change my consent about that in the midst of handing it to you.
You walk away believing I have given you a dollar. I walk away believing that I have been mugged because I changed my consent about that dollar while handing it to you.
I contact the police. They come and question you and myself.
Do you think it would be a strong enough case to take to trial?
Now again, they check into my background and discover that I've accused several people who were panhandling of mugging me before in a manner similar to this one. Do you think they would press charges and take it to trial?
You bring up many more points and yes, for example the enjoyment of being a victim would factor into whether the DA would take it to trial.
So if you view muggings in the context of them being crimes the second you withdraw consent, I think you would have more probing into your own background as well. Again most crimes are not this way. They are objectively crimes and still must be proven so in a manner that goes beyond circumstancial evidence. If I murder you, it doesn't become a crime whether you consented to it or not. It becomes a crime the second I attempt to kill you for example.
If this girl can sue kobe, whilst letting the criminal case drop, can kobe counter-sue for damages like lost endorsements, pay lost (if any) for missed workouts, practices, and games, and what about the golden goose, defamation of character on the grounds that if he really did what is alleged, she would have proceeded with the criminal proceedings and THEN went for cival (ala OJ)?
A couple points, first rape is a crime of consent. It is a crime that could actually be legal while the sex is occuring and then become illegal the second she decides to say no. It is very different in that nature. It is different because the woman and her consent take an otherwise legal act and make it immediately illegal. Nothing about the mugging was ever legal
To make your example similar to rape we would need to change it to something like this. Suppose you were a bum and I was walking down the street. You are panhandling and ask me for some change. I freely give you a dollar however, I mentally change my consent about that in the midst of handing it to you.
You walk away believing I have given you a dollar. I walk away believing that I have been mugged because I changed my consent about that dollar while handing it to you.
I contact the police. They come and question you and myself.
Do you think it would be a strong enough case to take to trial?
Now again, they check into my background and discover that I've accused several people who were panhandling of mugging me before in a manner similar to this one. Do you think they would press charges and take it to trial?
You bring up many more points and yes, for example the enjoyment of being a victim would factor into whether the DA would take it to trial.
So if you view muggings in the context of them being crimes the second you withdraw consent, I think you would have more probing into your own background as well. Again most crimes are not this way. They are objectively crimes and still must be proven so in a manner that goes beyond circumstancial evidence. If I murder you, it doesn't become a crime whether you consented to it or not. It becomes a crime the second I attempt to kill you for example.
Nick
I think rape is a crime of power not sex but I'll address the consent thing. I don't know about US law - actually I don't know about Australian law either - but my guess would be that if a woman agreed to have sex and then changed her mind during the act, it would only become rape if the guy continued to have sex with her.
I doubt women changing their mind during sexual intercourse occurs very often. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it is relatively common for women to change their mind after there's been a significant amount of sexual activity and foreplay but before sex. In the former case (change of mind during sex), I'd bet the chance of getting a conviction against the man would be Buckley's and none. And I think it would be pretty tough in the latter too unless there were signs of force having been used.
I don't agree other crimes lack the element of consent. I'd sugget with most crimes it is assumed the victim didn't give consent. In the case of giving money to the bum, I think, technically, it could only become a mugging if you withdraw your consent at the very moment the money passed from your hand to the bum's. If you withdraw consent before handing over the money and the bum grabs it off you, clearly it's a mugging. If you have given him the money and then change your mind it's not because you're trying to withdraw consent retrospectively. In any case, I think you'd have very little chance of securing a conviction.
That's a difficult example to work with because there is only a very brief moment in time when your change of mind could turn the situation into a mugging. But murder's a great one! And I think this will demonstrate why in most crimes, the victim's lack of consent is assumed. Murder is murder whether you consent to it or not. Or is it? What about euthanasia. OK technically it's murder but in Oz anyway, it's rarely prosecuted even in cases where it is admitted. Dr Phillip Nitschke (sp?), the euthanasia evangelist was never charged.
Leaving aside the religious and ethical issues, the reason euthanasia creates such a dilemma is entirely due to the fact that the "victim" has given consent to be "murdered". On the other hand, the death penalty is not regarded as murder even though consent has not been given. It's been argued that suicide (where it's classified as a crime) and illicit drug use are legal anomalies because, unlike other crimes, victim and perpetrator are one and the same. If someone chooses to take their own life or shoot up dope, whose rights have been violated?
If I ask you to chain me to the bed and whip me (in your dreams Trumpty ) it's not assault. Whereas acts involving considerably less physical violence against a person's wishes are assault.
Bloody good arguments don't you reckon? I think so. Stay tuned, I've got a great one coming up to deal with the whole admissable evidence thing too. But I can't believe I actually used the terms "sexual intercourse" and "sexual activity". In public! That's a worry.
Again.. by your "rape shield" logic, any behavior not directly linked the the current situation under scrutiny should not be admissible at all. That would be equal treatment.
1) This is not a court of law.
2) Kobe is not the alleged victim in either case, so there is nothing to shield him from.
Quote:
If The woman in this case had a history of saying "no" but then engaging in sex anyway, then why should that not be admissible?
No, because Bryant knew nothing of her history and would have no basis for believing "no" did not mean "no" with her.
Quote:
I'm not saying she does this, but if we are going to dig into an innocent persons past to establish some kind of pattern, then the accused should be under the same hatchet.
But the accused is under exponentially less scrutiny in this case than the accuser. This is undeniable.
Quote:
Also reading that article, since no chartges were filed, there is no direct evidence to that behaviour.
Would it honestly surprise you that she would not report Kobe to the police even if you knew, with 100% honesty that it happened? Do you know anything about the psychological effects of sexual assault?
Quote:
Did it happen? We really don't know? Has she ever been groped before? bY other players? Was that a common practice? Did she think nothing of it? You would be surprised what comes out under cross examination.
I would not be surprised at all that a woman who has been made a sex object by powerful men only viewed herself as such.
2) Kobe is not the alleged victim in either case, so there is nothing to shield him from.
No, because Bryant knew nothing of her history and would have no basis for believing "no" did not mean "no" with her.
But the accused is under exponentially less scrutiny in this case than the accuser. This is undeniable.
Would it honestly surprise you that she would not report Kobe to the police even if you knew, with 100% honesty that it happened? Do you know anything about the psychological effects of sexual assault?
I would not be surprised at all that a woman who has been made a sex object by powerful men only viewed herself as such.
True this forum is not a court of law, but as I said before, i think it fair to treat the subject as if it were. Kobe would indeed a victim <b> IF</b> he is wrongly accused. He <b> is</b> a victim of the rape shield laws becuase they confer more rights to the accusor than they do the accused. There is no way around that fact, he is told what he can and cannot investigate while the prosecution is free to investigate any and everything. That is by its very definition a denial of equal protection and due process.
Kobe does not have to "know" this individuals history in order to be confused as to whether the woman was indeed declining to have sex. None of us were in the room so we have no idea what went on. It is known that women give, withdraw and then re-give consent during the "mating game." It is this very behaviour that leads to the legal quagmire that we see here. I would say that Kobe was a damn fool if she was waffling to even go there but his foolishness does not neccessarily constitute a crime.
I agree that the accusors background has been exponentially more investigated than Kobe's and the DA should be going after everything they can to "prove" this case. That he groped another woman in 2002 does not mean he raped this one. But if we are going to establish patterns of behavior then given the 'he said/she said" nature of the crime, both parties should be free to probe the backgrounds of the other and hope there isn't dirt to dish.. OR both parties should be barred from investigating either parties past.
As for that 2002 woman, I'm not in a position to judge her mental capacity. I think it presumptious of you to assume that she thinks of herself as a sex object.
On the issue of third party semen, I fail to see the relevance of this. Sexual assault turns on reasonable belief of consent in the particular circumstances? the fact that the woman has sex with other men simply isn't relevant to whether she consents to sex with another man ? the point being that who she chooses to have sex with is entirely her own decision.
The issue is relevant because under normal circumstances, rape victims do not engage in sexual activity within such a short time frame. In fact, statistically, many find it difficult to engage in sexual activity for quite some time (ie: months)
Additionally, Groverat, generally speaking, individuals who intend to sue for damages as the result of a criminal act, including rape, will wait until the conclusion of a criminal trial. A conviction then becomes admissable evidence towards liability in a civil matter.
It is likely that this moment has been chosen to file a civil case because of two important things:
1. It's not likely that there will be a conviction at this point. So waiting doesn't provide that additional benefit to the plaintiff. It actually doesn't appear likely that there will be a trial.
2. In a civil case there is no such thing as "rape-shield" so her entire sexual history will be game. This isn't something a plaintiff would usually want out there, however now it's irrelevant since it will be out there whether she pursues a civil case or not. There is no benefit to her by not going to a civil case.
Women do not, in general have sex immediatly following being raped. If anything the consistent behavior would be that of fear of being touched and of any sexual intimacy for a while even from "trusted" people. Therefore her behavior after the encounter is highly relevant to the case and should not be withheld from the jury.
It seems the argument here is:
1. This woman had sex immediately after being raped.
2. This is abnormal behaviour.
3. Therefore, her whole story is open to question.
Just reiterating, she's not the one on trial here but if she was, it would seem convicting her of lying and fraudulent behaviour requires a considerably lower burden of proof than the prosecution needs to convict Bryant. I can only countenance allowing very limited information about her activities immediately before or after the alleged rape because Bryant is innocent until proven guilty. There is evidence that could lead a jury to conclude he raped her. If other evidence suggests this conclusion could be flawed, then it probably should be presented.
I don't think the money thing is relevant. There's no reason to believe this is a scam and she's just in it for the money (innocent until proven guilty?) If I'd been raped and he got off or was convicted, I'd have no qualms about trying to extract some financial compensation for the trauma. He's a wealthy celebrity, good. If he wants a good screwing, I'll screw him for all he's worth AND I'll sell the story to a magazine as well. Fuck him. Paybacks are sweet.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
Since the evidence in a criminal proceeding is placed under higher srutiny ( For what reason I don't understand), it is more likely to win a decision in a civil case. In summary, Criminal trials serve as discovery for a civil proceeding ( which I think, if a defendant is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding then they shoudl be immune from civil actions).
The reason criminal proceedings are subject to higher scrutiny is because money can't buy you liberty. The problem with giving immunity from civil action if found not guilty is that the burden of proof is different. In criminal cases it's beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases it's on the basis of probabilities. That is, there's no doubt he's guilty versus he's probably guilty. As the burden of proof is different, you'd be giving immunity from civil action for no reason at all.
Now, admissable evidence. How come it's OK to talk about his groping in 2002 but it's not OK to talk about her sexual history? Again (sorry!), she's not on trial. The prosecution has to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Aside from the slim possibility that physical evidence arising from her activities immediately before or after the rape might undermine other evidence that points to his guilt, how else could her prior sexual history prove his innocence.
In Bryant's case, there is a consistency between the groping allegation and the alleged rape. A common thread. Both incidents involve a lack of consent on the woman's part. In her case, maybe she has consensual sex with a dozen different guys a week. But she has accused Bryant of forcing her to have non-consensual sex. There's no way to get from "she screws around a lot" to "she's making the rape story up" without introducing value judgements.
Having said that, I don't think the groping allegation should be given too much weight. As you said Sondjata , it is only an allegation. In addition, I'm sure there are very few women who haven't experienced unwelcome sexual advances. I can't speak for others but I've rarely felt that I was being violated or suspected the guy was a potential rapist. How often do people really give clear, unequivocal consent? People misread things, misinterpret words and actions, let their imaginations run away with them and get drunk. That doesn't mean they're a rapist or that they've committed a sexual assault.
It just means they're in for a big let down when I tell them to get their hand off my arse.
1. This woman had sex immediately after being raped.
2. This is abnormal behaviour.
3. Therefore, her whole story is open to question.
Just reiterating, she's not the one on trial here but if she was, it would seem convicting her of lying and fraudulent behaviour requires a considerably lower burden of proof than the prosecution needs to convict Bryant. I can only countenance allowing very limited information about her activities immediately before or after the alleged rape because Bryant is innocent until proven guilty. There is evidence that could lead a jury to conclude he raped her. If other evidence suggests this conclusion could be flawed, then it probably should be presented.
I don't think the money thing is relevant. There's no reason to believe this is a scam and she's just in it for the money (innocent until proven guilty?) If I'd been raped and he got off or was convicted, I'd have no qualms about trying to extract some financial compensation for the trauma. He's a wealthy celebrity, good. If he wants a good screwing, I'll screw him for all he's worth AND I'll sell the story to a magazine as well. Fuck him. Paybacks are sweet.
perhaps you misread my comments. I know who is on trail. My objection is to two things:
a) the near assumption of guilt prior to all the evidence being examined and considered.
b) The rape shield law that takes away the defendant (who is to presumed innocent) ability to establish esculpatory evidence, and hides the victims identity while exposes his (or hers if the case is as such). That is inherently unfair. Their is no argueing that point. While it sounds all well and sympathetic to "protect the victim," rape shield crosses the line. What we end up with is the old "well if you're innocent, why are you being accused?" mentality. The issue is if a doctor is going to say "her bruises are consistent with rape." but the individuals behavior is inconsistent with one who has been raped, then questions needs to be asked. It may well be that she was raped by Bryant, wasn't going to tell, had sex with her new boyfriend, had problems performing and finally confessed that she had been raped and was encouraged to report it by the supportive boyfriend. I don't know. But the fact is, no one should be allowed to hide such things. If this is the case why not come out and say so?
I still have a problem with civil actions based on the same actions as a criminal trial unless the defendant was found guilty in that criminal proceeding.
Quote:
The reason criminal proceedings are subject to higher scrutiny is because money can't buy you liberty. The problem with giving immunity from civil action if found not guilty is that the burden of proof is different. In criminal cases it's beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases it's on the basis of probabilities. That is, there's no doubt he's guilty versus he's probably guilty. As the burden of proof is different, you'd be giving immunity from civil action for no reason at all.
Now, admissable evidence. How come it's OK to talk about his groping in 2002 but it's not OK to talk about her sexual history? Again (sorry!), she's not on trial. The prosecution has to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Aside from the slim possibility that physical evidence arising from her activities immediately before or after the rape might undermine other evidence that points to his guilt, how else could her prior sexual history prove his innocence.
In Bryant's case, there is a consistency between the groping allegation and the alleged rape. A common thread. Both incidents involve a lack of consent on the woman's part. In her case, maybe she has consensual sex with a dozen different guys a week. But she has accused Bryant of forcing her to have non-consensual sex. There's no way to get from "she screws around a lot" to "she's making the rape story up" without introducing value judgements.
Having said that, I don't think the groping allegation should be given too much weight. As you said Sondjata , it is only an allegation. In addition, I'm sure there are very few women who haven't experienced unwelcome sexual advances. I can't speak for others but I've rarely felt that I was being violated or suspected the guy was a potential rapist. How often do people really give clear, unequivocal consent? People misread things, misinterpret words and actions, let their imaginations run away with them and get drunk. That doesn't mean they're a rapist or that they've committed a sexual assault.
It just means they're in for a big let down when I tell them to get their hand off my arse.
Still have problems with the whole "probability" thing. anything could have "probably happened." Ducks can be lined up in any which way one likes. To me, by saying "upon close examination, the defendant cannot be clearly found guilty" and then going to another trial and saying "well we can't prove that he is beyond reasonable doubt guilty, we still think that he did it and want you to think that he probably did it too. Never mind that under closer scrutiny the evidence doesn't convict, just think how it <i> might</I> have happened and hand us a favorable verdict."
Still have problems with the whole "probability" thing. anything could have "probably happened." Ducks can be lined up in any which way one likes. To me, by saying "upon close examination, the defendant cannot be clearly found guilty" and then going to another trial and saying "well we can't prove that he is beyond reasonable doubt guilty, we still think that he did it and want you to think that he probably did it too. Never mind that under closer scrutiny the evidence doesn't convict, just think how it <i> might</I> have happened and hand us a favorable verdict."
Irrespective of the probability of her motives, the criminal and civil law systems in this country operate largely independantly of each other.
First of all, in actuality, a criminal trial does not determine guilt or innocence. It determines the credibility of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt whereas it relates to the likelihood someone committed a crime. An aquittal of criminal charges is not an indication of innocence - it's a statement that there was at least reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Second in a Civil matter, the only relationship to a criminal case is that a conviction can be used to indicate liability. A Civil matter does not determine guily but rather, liability. You can be found by a jury to be not-guilty, but still be found liable (ie: OJ Simpson).
In a Civil trial, liability can be established if there is a slightly higher likelihood that someone is liable than that they are not (51%). That's all that is required. So just because there isn't a conviction (99%) that doesn't mean they aren't liable.
Generally the lack of a convction will deter people from pursuing a civil action, however in cases where the prosecution tanked, or the case was extremely week for a criminal trial, often a civil action is more likely to have a favorable outcome for a plaintiff.
The rules of evidence are much less stringent because the defendant isn't at risk of loss of liberty or life, but rather simply money.
He <b> is</b> a victim of the rape shield laws becuase they confer more rights to the accusor than they do the accused.
That doesn't make any sense. The rape shield law protecting the victim does not victimize Kobe in any way. The state is not prosecuting the victim, so Kobe is the one under legal scrutiny.
Quote:
There is no way around that fact, he is told what he can and cannot investigate while the prosecution is free to investigate any and everything. That is by its very definition a denial of equal protection and due process.
He can investigate anything he likes, rape shield laws jsut control what information can be released to the public and what is admissable for trial. How the hell is Kobe victimized by not being able to throw her name on the front page (which the state of Colorado seems more than capable of doing for him anyway)?
Quote:
Kobe does not have to "know" this individuals history in order to be confused as to whether the woman was indeed declining to have sex.
If you're confused then don't do it. If you go ahead and she refuses and says it was rape then you're fucked, you raped her.
There is a sense of entitlement in your argument that I find highly disturbing.
Quote:
It is known that women give, withdraw and then re-give consent during the "mating game."
That is such a played-out, frat-party-rape stereotype I find it shocking that you would even spread it.
Quote:
I would say that Kobe was a damn fool if she was waffling to even go there but his foolishness does not neccessarily constitute a crime.
Not necessarily, but it certainly could.
Quote:
But if we are going to establish patterns of behavior then given the 'he said/she said" nature of the crime, both parties should be free to probe the backgrounds of the other and hope there isn't dirt to dish.. OR both parties should be barred from investigating either parties past.
One is the alleged victim, one is the alleged rapist. There is a world of difference.
Quote:
As for that 2002 woman, I'm not in a position to judge her mental capacity. I think it presumptious of you to assume that she thinks of herself as a sex object.
I didn't make that assumption, you did in your own post.
Re: criminal case before civil case.
I realize that this is how it generally works, but I am talking about the very specific phenomenon of women falsely accusing celebrities of rape. As far as I know, without fail they go for the wallet first, be it through direct "pay me or I'll talk" threats or through a quickly-filed civil trial.
This case is without precedent in my experience where the victim has waited over one year to bring up a civil case.
This case is without precedent in my experience where the victim has waited over one year to bring up a civil case.
Actually as OBJRA mentioned, civil suits are often filed after criminal proceedings because then you can use the criminal charge as further proof of liability.
I need the alternatives and an explanation as to why the alternative is a better way to do things spelt out for me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
Kobe would indeed a victim <b> IF</b> he is wrongly accused.
Innocent people are accused, charged and (hopefully) acquitted everyday. Only a handful get the protections offered in rape cases. I guess you could say they're all victims but what's the alternative? Only prosecute people when you're sure they're guilty?
Quote:
a) the near assumption of guilt prior to all the evidence being examined and considered.
Who's assuming guilt? You? Me? The media? We can assume what we like but there are only 12 people whose decision matters. The same 12 people who, if there is a trial, will be asked to examine and consider all the evidence. How do you stop the public making assumptions about guilt or innocence? Don't allow the details of the case to be publicised at all?
Quote:
hides the victims identity while exposes his (or hers if the case is as such). That is inherently unfair. Their is no argueing that point.
So we'll be naming the kid in cases of pedophillia too I guess? Plaster pictures of abused 6 year olds on the front page of every newspaper? I know the argument for protecting her identity. Is there some reason why she should be identified other than fairness? How does identifying the victim stop people saying "if you're innocent, why are you being accused"?
Quote:
But the fact is, no one should be allowed to hide such things. If this is the case why not come out and say so?
I'm not sure whether you mean hide the rape or hide her past history. But I'll tell you this. We have similar protections for rape victims in Australia. Nevertheless, I'd think very carefully before going to the police if I was raped. Can't sue a rape case in our civil courts so money isn't an issue. I'm sure seeing the perpetrator convicted would bring some satisfaction but is it worth the months possibly years the case drags on? And the protection afforded the victim doesn't mean the trial would be a walk in the park or that the defendant's lawyer isn't going to try and make me look like a lying, faking bitch. And after all that, how am I going to feel if he's acquitted? Stopping him from doing it to anyone else would be a compelling reason but I'm not responsible for balancing the scales of justice.
From where I'm sitting, provided I could deal with the head stuff, I think just moving on and not looking back wouldn't be such a bad option. Now those are the pros and cons of reporting rape as I see it with all the protections for the victim applying. Take away the protections, name me, expose my sexual history in minute detail, infer in open court that I'm a slut who asked for it and you can forget it. If I'd just been raped then I think I'd like to preserve whatever dignity and self-respect I had left.
So what's the story here? Do you want to see rapists held to account or not? Or does the possibility of a false rape accusation mean we should only pay lip service to the victim?
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
My most unpardonable sin, it seems, is the insistence that she be treated fairly by the law and by the public. Dispute that as my motive all you like, but as the post above mine proves (and in every damned thread about this), our society hates rape victims.
100% bull.
Rape victims are given many more rights than any other plaintiff. Her name has been shielded, her history (except for the actual rape timeframe) has been shielded, her prior history of acts that reveal character aspects and motivations (prior rape allegations and suicide attempts) has been shielded. None of these things are allowed for evidence.
The reverse is not true at all for Bryant or anyone else accused of rape.
Also we have no doubt that people hate rapists so that doesn't have to be debated. For every person that has called her a slut bag there are probably people who have called Bryant a dog, manwhore, adulterer, etc. Just because it didn't happen in this thread doesn't mean he didn't hear boo's and names in every NBA city, or by people walking past him daily or lose millions in endorsements on an accusation.
Nick
Her name has been shielded, her history (except for the actual rape timeframe) has been shielded, her prior history of acts that reveal character aspects and motivations (prior rape allegations and suicide attempts) has been shielded. None of these things are allowed for evidence.[/b]
You say "none" while pointing out that it is actually "some"?
Her name was not shielded, it was leaked on multiple occassions.
Her past is not shielded, it is admissable as evidence.
So all of that stuff you just said, not true at all.
Also we have no doubt that people hate rapists so that doesn't have to be debated.
We hate poor rapists.
For every person that has called her a slut bag there are probably people who have called Bryant a dog, manwhore, adulterer, etc.
How many death threats has Bryant got?
Is there a possibility that Bryant was forced over a chair and raped and then slandered in public, had people break into his house and threaten his life?
Did he not just sign one of the largets contracts in NBA history?
Originally posted by groverat
Sondjata:
Is this a court of law? Why does "innocent until proven guilty" apply here?
"Is that all?"
That's all I've read. I am trying to work with the information given me and I have read a rape nurse say the injuries were consistent with rape.
If I were to read testimony from a doctor or rape nurse who examined her say the injuries were consistent with consensual sex I would take that into account.
My most unpardonable sin, it seems, is the insistence that she be treated fairly by the law and by the public. Dispute that as my motive all you like, but as the post above mine proves (and in every damned thread about this), our society hates rape victims.
Perhaps you don't wish to apply it here but I insist on doing so. I see no reason to take sides in the debate. The evidence will speak for itself. The unpardonable sin you have committed is affording the alleged victim more rights than the accused. That would be a clear violation of the equal protection clause in the constitution. If we are not going to hold up equal protection and due process in our own lives then how can we expect the state to do so?
Only after a year of death threats and state bungling of the case as a civil case been hinted at. Athletes falsely accused are generally hit up for their bank account immediately (see: Michael Irvin).
Originally posted by trumptman
Rape victims are given many more rights than any other plaintiff. Her name has been shielded, her history (except for the actual rape timeframe) has been shielded, her prior history of acts that reveal character aspects and motivations (prior rape allegations and suicide attempts) has been shielded. None of these things are allowed for evidence.
Hold your horses Trumpty! While I do think anyone accused of a crime has the right to the full presumption of innocence no matter how damning the evidence until the verdict is in, she's not the one on trial here.
Let's take the sexual nature of the crime out of it. Say every night on my way home from work, I walk alone, in the dark, through a dangerous part of town. If I'm mugged one night, should my risk-taking behaviour diminish my attacker's responsibility.
Not AFAIC. You either have the right to walk the streets unmolested or you don't. Say it turns out that I have a long history of risk-taking behaviour, that I've been mugged several times before, and a psychiatric report says I enjoy being in the role of the victim. Should this be taken into account if the perpetrator is brought to trial? The answer's still no for me. I have a right to enjoy my personal safety. Stupid risks or psychological issues on my part aren't relevant to my attacker's inability to exercise proper impulse control.
There have been a series of incidents involving alleged sexual impropriety by football players in Oz over recent months. Invariably, my gut reaction is "the testosterone fuelled bastard is guilty". But this is pure bias and while that's fine as long as I'm just holding an opinion, it would be entirely inappropriate were I on the jury.
There was one incident in which a woman alleged she was gang raped by 5 football players. The charges were eventually dropped (they always are). I suspect she was a football groupie and I think her decision to accompany them alone to their hotel room when they were fired up after a game and full of booze, was monumentally stupid on her part. However, this does not translate to she asked for it or diminish the men's guilt had the case gone to trial and they been convicted. Personal responsibility. The vast majority of males don't go around raping women so I don't see any reason to lower the bar for some. (Although I don't have a problem with relevant personal history from a convicted criminal's past being taken into account when sentencing them.)
Now remember what a reasonable person I am and be nice. If you think she's a slut and a gold digger you have the right to your opinion and I'm not going to call you names or make assumptions about your personal worth on the basis of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5593812/
Originally posted by groverat
This case, so far, has not followed the pattern of false accusation against a rich person for fame.
Only after a year of death threats and state bungling of the case as a civil case been hinted at. Athletes falsely accused are generally hit up for their bank account immediately (see: Michael Irvin).
But again you miss my point. My point is not whether the rich, be they athletes or anyother type, have it easier. My point is that Kobe is innocent until the jury finds him guilty. Until then there are only accusations and forensic evidence. I've never spoken ill of this woman, perhaps she was raped. Perhaps she was raped by Mr. X and not Kobe. I don't know. But it is the job of the prosecution to show that Kobe did it and thus far from what has been leaked, it appears that the evidence does not support the accusation. See what's killing this case is not really what she did prior to meeting Kobe, it's what she apparently did afterwards. Women do not, in general have sex immediatly following being raped. If anything the consistent behavior would be that of fear of being touched and of any sexual intimacy for a while even from "trusted" people. Therefore her behavior after the encounter is highly relevant to the case and should not be withheld from the jury.
As for being hit up for money, in this case it makes sense that she would wait for after a criminal trial. A criminal trial, just like the OJ case brings out evidence that can then be used in a civil proceeding. Since the evidence in a criminal proceeding is placed under higher srutiny ( For what reason I don't understand), it is more likely to win a decision in a civil case. In summary, Criminal trials serve as discovery for a civil proceeding ( which I think, if a defendant is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding then they shoudl be immune from civil actions).
Originally posted by groverat
I also like the selective use of rumors by the anti-rape-victim crowd.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5593812/
Again.. by your "rape shield" logic, any behavior not directly linked the the current situation under scrutiny should not be admissible at all. That would be equal treatment. For example:
If The woman in this case had a history of saying "no" but then engaging in sex anyway, then why should that not be admissible? I'm not saying she does this, but if we are going to dig into an innocent persons past to establish some kind of pattern, then the accused should be under the same hatchet.
Also reading that article, since no chartges were filed, there is no direct evidence to that behaviour. Did it happen? We really don't know? Has she ever been groped before? bY other players? Was that a common practice? Did she think nothing of it? You would be surprised what comes out under cross examination.
Originally posted by crazychester
Hold your horses Trumpty! While I do think anyone accused of a crime has the right to the full presumption of innocence no matter how damning the evidence until the verdict is in, she's not the one on trial here.
Let's take the sexual nature of the crime out of it. Say every night on my way home from work, I walk alone, in the dark, through a dangerous part of town. If I'm mugged one night, should my risk-taking behaviour diminish my attacker's responsibility.
Not AFAIC. You either have the right to walk the streets unmolested or you don't. Say it turns out that I have a long history of risk-taking behaviour, that I've been mugged several times before, and a psychiatric report says I enjoy being in the role of the victim. Should this be taken into account if the perpetrator is brought to trial? The answer's still no for me. I have a right to enjoy my personal safety. Stupid risks or psychological issues on my part aren't relevant to my attacker's inability to exercise proper impulse control.
Now remember what a reasonable person I am and be nice. If you think she's a slut and a gold digger you have the right to your opinion and I'm not going to call you names or make assumptions about your personal worth on the basis of it.
A couple points, first rape is a crime of consent. It is a crime that could actually be legal while the sex is occuring and then become illegal the second she decides to say no. It is very different in that nature. It is different because the woman and her consent take an otherwise legal act and make it immediately illegal. Nothing about the mugging was ever legal
To make your example similar to rape we would need to change it to something like this. Suppose you were a bum and I was walking down the street. You are panhandling and ask me for some change. I freely give you a dollar however, I mentally change my consent about that in the midst of handing it to you.
You walk away believing I have given you a dollar. I walk away believing that I have been mugged because I changed my consent about that dollar while handing it to you.
I contact the police. They come and question you and myself.
Do you think it would be a strong enough case to take to trial?
Now again, they check into my background and discover that I've accused several people who were panhandling of mugging me before in a manner similar to this one. Do you think they would press charges and take it to trial?
You bring up many more points and yes, for example the enjoyment of being a victim would factor into whether the DA would take it to trial.
So if you view muggings in the context of them being crimes the second you withdraw consent, I think you would have more probing into your own background as well. Again most crimes are not this way. They are objectively crimes and still must be proven so in a manner that goes beyond circumstancial evidence. If I murder you, it doesn't become a crime whether you consented to it or not. It becomes a crime the second I attempt to kill you for example.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
A couple points, first rape is a crime of consent. It is a crime that could actually be legal while the sex is occuring and then become illegal the second she decides to say no. It is very different in that nature. It is different because the woman and her consent take an otherwise legal act and make it immediately illegal. Nothing about the mugging was ever legal
To make your example similar to rape we would need to change it to something like this. Suppose you were a bum and I was walking down the street. You are panhandling and ask me for some change. I freely give you a dollar however, I mentally change my consent about that in the midst of handing it to you.
You walk away believing I have given you a dollar. I walk away believing that I have been mugged because I changed my consent about that dollar while handing it to you.
I contact the police. They come and question you and myself.
Do you think it would be a strong enough case to take to trial?
Now again, they check into my background and discover that I've accused several people who were panhandling of mugging me before in a manner similar to this one. Do you think they would press charges and take it to trial?
You bring up many more points and yes, for example the enjoyment of being a victim would factor into whether the DA would take it to trial.
So if you view muggings in the context of them being crimes the second you withdraw consent, I think you would have more probing into your own background as well. Again most crimes are not this way. They are objectively crimes and still must be proven so in a manner that goes beyond circumstancial evidence. If I murder you, it doesn't become a crime whether you consented to it or not. It becomes a crime the second I attempt to kill you for example.
Nick
I think rape is a crime of power not sex but I'll address the consent thing. I don't know about US law - actually I don't know about Australian law either - but my guess would be that if a woman agreed to have sex and then changed her mind during the act, it would only become rape if the guy continued to have sex with her.
I doubt women changing their mind during sexual intercourse occurs very often. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it is relatively common for women to change their mind after there's been a significant amount of sexual activity and foreplay but before sex. In the former case (change of mind during sex), I'd bet the chance of getting a conviction against the man would be Buckley's and none. And I think it would be pretty tough in the latter too unless there were signs of force having been used.
I don't agree other crimes lack the element of consent. I'd sugget with most crimes it is assumed the victim didn't give consent. In the case of giving money to the bum, I think, technically, it could only become a mugging if you withdraw your consent at the very moment the money passed from your hand to the bum's. If you withdraw consent before handing over the money and the bum grabs it off you, clearly it's a mugging. If you have given him the money and then change your mind it's not because you're trying to withdraw consent retrospectively. In any case, I think you'd have very little chance of securing a conviction.
That's a difficult example to work with because there is only a very brief moment in time when your change of mind could turn the situation into a mugging. But murder's a great one! And I think this will demonstrate why in most crimes, the victim's lack of consent is assumed. Murder is murder whether you consent to it or not. Or is it? What about euthanasia. OK technically it's murder but in Oz anyway, it's rarely prosecuted even in cases where it is admitted. Dr Phillip Nitschke (sp?), the euthanasia evangelist was never charged.
Leaving aside the religious and ethical issues, the reason euthanasia creates such a dilemma is entirely due to the fact that the "victim" has given consent to be "murdered". On the other hand, the death penalty is not regarded as murder even though consent has not been given. It's been argued that suicide (where it's classified as a crime) and illicit drug use are legal anomalies because, unlike other crimes, victim and perpetrator are one and the same. If someone chooses to take their own life or shoot up dope, whose rights have been violated?
If I ask you to chain me to the bed and whip me (in your dreams Trumpty
Bloody good arguments don't you reckon?
Again.. by your "rape shield" logic, any behavior not directly linked the the current situation under scrutiny should not be admissible at all. That would be equal treatment.
1) This is not a court of law.
2) Kobe is not the alleged victim in either case, so there is nothing to shield him from.
If The woman in this case had a history of saying "no" but then engaging in sex anyway, then why should that not be admissible?
No, because Bryant knew nothing of her history and would have no basis for believing "no" did not mean "no" with her.
I'm not saying she does this, but if we are going to dig into an innocent persons past to establish some kind of pattern, then the accused should be under the same hatchet.
But the accused is under exponentially less scrutiny in this case than the accuser. This is undeniable.
Also reading that article, since no chartges were filed, there is no direct evidence to that behaviour.
Would it honestly surprise you that she would not report Kobe to the police even if you knew, with 100% honesty that it happened? Do you know anything about the psychological effects of sexual assault?
Did it happen? We really don't know? Has she ever been groped before? bY other players? Was that a common practice? Did she think nothing of it? You would be surprised what comes out under cross examination.
I would not be surprised at all that a woman who has been made a sex object by powerful men only viewed herself as such.
Originally posted by groverat
1) This is not a court of law.
2) Kobe is not the alleged victim in either case, so there is nothing to shield him from.
No, because Bryant knew nothing of her history and would have no basis for believing "no" did not mean "no" with her.
But the accused is under exponentially less scrutiny in this case than the accuser. This is undeniable.
Would it honestly surprise you that she would not report Kobe to the police even if you knew, with 100% honesty that it happened? Do you know anything about the psychological effects of sexual assault?
I would not be surprised at all that a woman who has been made a sex object by powerful men only viewed herself as such.
True this forum is not a court of law, but as I said before, i think it fair to treat the subject as if it were. Kobe would indeed a victim <b> IF</b> he is wrongly accused. He <b> is</b> a victim of the rape shield laws becuase they confer more rights to the accusor than they do the accused. There is no way around that fact, he is told what he can and cannot investigate while the prosecution is free to investigate any and everything. That is by its very definition a denial of equal protection and due process.
Kobe does not have to "know" this individuals history in order to be confused as to whether the woman was indeed declining to have sex. None of us were in the room so we have no idea what went on. It is known that women give, withdraw and then re-give consent during the "mating game." It is this very behaviour that leads to the legal quagmire that we see here. I would say that Kobe was a damn fool if she was waffling to even go there but his foolishness does not neccessarily constitute a crime.
I agree that the accusors background has been exponentially more investigated than Kobe's and the DA should be going after everything they can to "prove" this case. That he groped another woman in 2002 does not mean he raped this one. But if we are going to establish patterns of behavior then given the 'he said/she said" nature of the crime, both parties should be free to probe the backgrounds of the other and hope there isn't dirt to dish.. OR both parties should be barred from investigating either parties past.
As for that 2002 woman, I'm not in a position to judge her mental capacity. I think it presumptious of you to assume that she thinks of herself as a sex object.
On the issue of third party semen, I fail to see the relevance of this. Sexual assault turns on reasonable belief of consent in the particular circumstances? the fact that the woman has sex with other men simply isn't relevant to whether she consents to sex with another man ? the point being that who she chooses to have sex with is entirely her own decision.
The issue is relevant because under normal circumstances, rape victims do not engage in sexual activity within such a short time frame. In fact, statistically, many find it difficult to engage in sexual activity for quite some time (ie: months)
Additionally, Groverat, generally speaking, individuals who intend to sue for damages as the result of a criminal act, including rape, will wait until the conclusion of a criminal trial. A conviction then becomes admissable evidence towards liability in a civil matter.
It is likely that this moment has been chosen to file a civil case because of two important things:
1. It's not likely that there will be a conviction at this point. So waiting doesn't provide that additional benefit to the plaintiff. It actually doesn't appear likely that there will be a trial.
2. In a civil case there is no such thing as "rape-shield" so her entire sexual history will be game. This isn't something a plaintiff would usually want out there, however now it's irrelevant since it will be out there whether she pursues a civil case or not. There is no benefit to her by not going to a civil case.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Women do not, in general have sex immediatly following being raped. If anything the consistent behavior would be that of fear of being touched and of any sexual intimacy for a while even from "trusted" people. Therefore her behavior after the encounter is highly relevant to the case and should not be withheld from the jury.
It seems the argument here is:
1. This woman had sex immediately after being raped.
2. This is abnormal behaviour.
3. Therefore, her whole story is open to question.
Just reiterating, she's not the one on trial here but if she was, it would seem convicting her of lying and fraudulent behaviour requires a considerably lower burden of proof than the prosecution needs to convict Bryant. I can only countenance allowing very limited information about her activities immediately before or after the alleged rape because Bryant is innocent until proven guilty. There is evidence that could lead a jury to conclude he raped her. If other evidence suggests this conclusion could be flawed, then it probably should be presented.
I don't think the money thing is relevant. There's no reason to believe this is a scam and she's just in it for the money (innocent until proven guilty?) If I'd been raped and he got off or was convicted, I'd have no qualms about trying to extract some financial compensation for the trauma. He's a wealthy celebrity, good. If he wants a good screwing, I'll screw him for all he's worth AND I'll sell the story to a magazine as well. Fuck him. Paybacks are sweet.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Since the evidence in a criminal proceeding is placed under higher srutiny ( For what reason I don't understand), it is more likely to win a decision in a civil case. In summary, Criminal trials serve as discovery for a civil proceeding ( which I think, if a defendant is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding then they shoudl be immune from civil actions).
The reason criminal proceedings are subject to higher scrutiny is because money can't buy you liberty. The problem with giving immunity from civil action if found not guilty is that the burden of proof is different. In criminal cases it's beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases it's on the basis of probabilities. That is, there's no doubt he's guilty versus he's probably guilty. As the burden of proof is different, you'd be giving immunity from civil action for no reason at all.
Now, admissable evidence. How come it's OK to talk about his groping in 2002 but it's not OK to talk about her sexual history? Again (sorry!), she's not on trial. The prosecution has to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Aside from the slim possibility that physical evidence arising from her activities immediately before or after the rape might undermine other evidence that points to his guilt, how else could her prior sexual history prove his innocence.
In Bryant's case, there is a consistency between the groping allegation and the alleged rape. A common thread. Both incidents involve a lack of consent on the woman's part. In her case, maybe she has consensual sex with a dozen different guys a week. But she has accused Bryant of forcing her to have non-consensual sex. There's no way to get from "she screws around a lot" to "she's making the rape story up" without introducing value judgements.
Having said that, I don't think the groping allegation should be given too much weight. As you said Sondjata , it is only an allegation. In addition, I'm sure there are very few women who haven't experienced unwelcome sexual advances. I can't speak for others but I've rarely felt that I was being violated or suspected the guy was a potential rapist. How often do people really give clear, unequivocal consent? People misread things, misinterpret words and actions, let their imaginations run away with them and get drunk. That doesn't mean they're a rapist or that they've committed a sexual assault.
It just means they're in for a big let down when I tell them to get their hand off my arse.
Originally posted by crazychester
It seems the argument here is:
1. This woman had sex immediately after being raped.
2. This is abnormal behaviour.
3. Therefore, her whole story is open to question.
Just reiterating, she's not the one on trial here but if she was, it would seem convicting her of lying and fraudulent behaviour requires a considerably lower burden of proof than the prosecution needs to convict Bryant. I can only countenance allowing very limited information about her activities immediately before or after the alleged rape because Bryant is innocent until proven guilty. There is evidence that could lead a jury to conclude he raped her. If other evidence suggests this conclusion could be flawed, then it probably should be presented.
I don't think the money thing is relevant. There's no reason to believe this is a scam and she's just in it for the money (innocent until proven guilty?) If I'd been raped and he got off or was convicted, I'd have no qualms about trying to extract some financial compensation for the trauma. He's a wealthy celebrity, good. If he wants a good screwing, I'll screw him for all he's worth AND I'll sell the story to a magazine as well. Fuck him. Paybacks are sweet.
perhaps you misread my comments. I know who is on trail. My objection is to two things:
a) the near assumption of guilt prior to all the evidence being examined and considered.
b) The rape shield law that takes away the defendant (who is to presumed innocent) ability to establish esculpatory evidence, and hides the victims identity while exposes his (or hers if the case is as such). That is inherently unfair. Their is no argueing that point. While it sounds all well and sympathetic to "protect the victim," rape shield crosses the line. What we end up with is the old "well if you're innocent, why are you being accused?" mentality. The issue is if a doctor is going to say "her bruises are consistent with rape." but the individuals behavior is inconsistent with one who has been raped, then questions needs to be asked. It may well be that she was raped by Bryant, wasn't going to tell, had sex with her new boyfriend, had problems performing and finally confessed that she had been raped and was encouraged to report it by the supportive boyfriend. I don't know. But the fact is, no one should be allowed to hide such things. If this is the case why not come out and say so?
I still have a problem with civil actions based on the same actions as a criminal trial unless the defendant was found guilty in that criminal proceeding.
The reason criminal proceedings are subject to higher scrutiny is because money can't buy you liberty. The problem with giving immunity from civil action if found not guilty is that the burden of proof is different. In criminal cases it's beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases it's on the basis of probabilities. That is, there's no doubt he's guilty versus he's probably guilty. As the burden of proof is different, you'd be giving immunity from civil action for no reason at all.
Now, admissable evidence. How come it's OK to talk about his groping in 2002 but it's not OK to talk about her sexual history? Again (sorry!), she's not on trial. The prosecution has to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Aside from the slim possibility that physical evidence arising from her activities immediately before or after the rape might undermine other evidence that points to his guilt, how else could her prior sexual history prove his innocence.
In Bryant's case, there is a consistency between the groping allegation and the alleged rape. A common thread. Both incidents involve a lack of consent on the woman's part. In her case, maybe she has consensual sex with a dozen different guys a week. But she has accused Bryant of forcing her to have non-consensual sex. There's no way to get from "she screws around a lot" to "she's making the rape story up" without introducing value judgements.
Having said that, I don't think the groping allegation should be given too much weight. As you said Sondjata , it is only an allegation. In addition, I'm sure there are very few women who haven't experienced unwelcome sexual advances. I can't speak for others but I've rarely felt that I was being violated or suspected the guy was a potential rapist. How often do people really give clear, unequivocal consent? People misread things, misinterpret words and actions, let their imaginations run away with them and get drunk. That doesn't mean they're a rapist or that they've committed a sexual assault.
It just means they're in for a big let down when I tell them to get their hand off my arse.
Still have problems with the whole "probability" thing. anything could have "probably happened." Ducks can be lined up in any which way one likes. To me, by saying "upon close examination, the defendant cannot be clearly found guilty" and then going to another trial and saying "well we can't prove that he is beyond reasonable doubt guilty, we still think that he did it and want you to think that he probably did it too. Never mind that under closer scrutiny the evidence doesn't convict, just think how it <i> might</I> have happened and hand us a favorable verdict."
That's how it sounds to me and I don't like it.
Still have problems with the whole "probability" thing. anything could have "probably happened." Ducks can be lined up in any which way one likes. To me, by saying "upon close examination, the defendant cannot be clearly found guilty" and then going to another trial and saying "well we can't prove that he is beyond reasonable doubt guilty, we still think that he did it and want you to think that he probably did it too. Never mind that under closer scrutiny the evidence doesn't convict, just think how it <i> might</I> have happened and hand us a favorable verdict."
Irrespective of the probability of her motives, the criminal and civil law systems in this country operate largely independantly of each other.
First of all, in actuality, a criminal trial does not determine guilt or innocence. It determines the credibility of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt whereas it relates to the likelihood someone committed a crime. An aquittal of criminal charges is not an indication of innocence - it's a statement that there was at least reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Second in a Civil matter, the only relationship to a criminal case is that a conviction can be used to indicate liability. A Civil matter does not determine guily but rather, liability. You can be found by a jury to be not-guilty, but still be found liable (ie: OJ Simpson).
In a Civil trial, liability can be established if there is a slightly higher likelihood that someone is liable than that they are not (51%). That's all that is required. So just because there isn't a conviction (99%) that doesn't mean they aren't liable.
Generally the lack of a convction will deter people from pursuing a civil action, however in cases where the prosecution tanked, or the case was extremely week for a criminal trial, often a civil action is more likely to have a favorable outcome for a plaintiff.
The rules of evidence are much less stringent because the defendant isn't at risk of loss of liberty or life, but rather simply money.
-prof j
He <b> is</b> a victim of the rape shield laws becuase they confer more rights to the accusor than they do the accused.
That doesn't make any sense. The rape shield law protecting the victim does not victimize Kobe in any way. The state is not prosecuting the victim, so Kobe is the one under legal scrutiny.
There is no way around that fact, he is told what he can and cannot investigate while the prosecution is free to investigate any and everything. That is by its very definition a denial of equal protection and due process.
He can investigate anything he likes, rape shield laws jsut control what information can be released to the public and what is admissable for trial. How the hell is Kobe victimized by not being able to throw her name on the front page (which the state of Colorado seems more than capable of doing for him anyway)?
Kobe does not have to "know" this individuals history in order to be confused as to whether the woman was indeed declining to have sex.
If you're confused then don't do it. If you go ahead and she refuses and says it was rape then you're fucked, you raped her.
There is a sense of entitlement in your argument that I find highly disturbing.
It is known that women give, withdraw and then re-give consent during the "mating game."
That is such a played-out, frat-party-rape stereotype I find it shocking that you would even spread it.
I would say that Kobe was a damn fool if she was waffling to even go there but his foolishness does not neccessarily constitute a crime.
Not necessarily, but it certainly could.
But if we are going to establish patterns of behavior then given the 'he said/she said" nature of the crime, both parties should be free to probe the backgrounds of the other and hope there isn't dirt to dish.. OR both parties should be barred from investigating either parties past.
One is the alleged victim, one is the alleged rapist. There is a world of difference.
As for that 2002 woman, I'm not in a position to judge her mental capacity. I think it presumptious of you to assume that she thinks of herself as a sex object.
I didn't make that assumption, you did in your own post.
Re: criminal case before civil case.
I realize that this is how it generally works, but I am talking about the very specific phenomenon of women falsely accusing celebrities of rape. As far as I know, without fail they go for the wallet first, be it through direct "pay me or I'll talk" threats or through a quickly-filed civil trial.
This case is without precedent in my experience where the victim has waited over one year to bring up a civil case.
Originally posted by groverat
This case is without precedent in my experience where the victim has waited over one year to bring up a civil case.
Actually as OBJRA mentioned, civil suits are often filed after criminal proceedings because then you can use the criminal charge as further proof of liability.
Nick
Originally posted by Sondjata
Kobe would indeed a victim <b> IF</b> he is wrongly accused.
Innocent people are accused, charged and (hopefully) acquitted everyday. Only a handful get the protections offered in rape cases. I guess you could say they're all victims but what's the alternative? Only prosecute people when you're sure they're guilty?
a) the near assumption of guilt prior to all the evidence being examined and considered.
Who's assuming guilt? You? Me? The media? We can assume what we like but there are only 12 people whose decision matters. The same 12 people who, if there is a trial, will be asked to examine and consider all the evidence. How do you stop the public making assumptions about guilt or innocence? Don't allow the details of the case to be publicised at all?
hides the victims identity while exposes his (or hers if the case is as such). That is inherently unfair. Their is no argueing that point.
So we'll be naming the kid in cases of pedophillia too I guess? Plaster pictures of abused 6 year olds on the front page of every newspaper? I know the argument for protecting her identity. Is there some reason why she should be identified other than fairness? How does identifying the victim stop people saying "if you're innocent, why are you being accused"?
But the fact is, no one should be allowed to hide such things. If this is the case why not come out and say so?
I'm not sure whether you mean hide the rape or hide her past history. But I'll tell you this. We have similar protections for rape victims in Australia. Nevertheless, I'd think very carefully before going to the police if I was raped. Can't sue a rape case in our civil courts so money isn't an issue. I'm sure seeing the perpetrator convicted would bring some satisfaction but is it worth the months possibly years the case drags on? And the protection afforded the victim doesn't mean the trial would be a walk in the park or that the defendant's lawyer isn't going to try and make me look like a lying, faking bitch. And after all that, how am I going to feel if he's acquitted? Stopping him from doing it to anyone else would be a compelling reason but I'm not responsible for balancing the scales of justice.
From where I'm sitting, provided I could deal with the head stuff, I think just moving on and not looking back wouldn't be such a bad option. Now those are the pros and cons of reporting rape as I see it with all the protections for the victim applying. Take away the protections, name me, expose my sexual history in minute detail, infer in open court that I'm a slut who asked for it and you can forget it. If I'd just been raped then I think I'd like to preserve whatever dignity and self-respect I had left.
So what's the story here? Do you want to see rapists held to account or not? Or does the possibility of a false rape accusation mean we should only pay lip service to the victim?