Reply With Quote
if by putting on a full defense you mean presenting prejudicial evidence unrelated to the alleged crime, yeah, I think it's ok for judges to bar that. it's always been ok for judges to do that. it's one of the things they're supposed to do.
absolutely agree.
if by putting on a full defense you mean presenting prejudicial evidence unrelated to the alleged crime, yeah, I think it's ok for judges to bar that. it's always been ok for judges to do that. it's one of the things they're supposed to do.
That's not what's going on. Rape Shield Laws render inadmissible evidence of the accuser's prior false allegations of rape. We routinely do the same thing when the accuser has been accused of prior turpitude (fraud). Apparently, you lose your right to put on a defense when you're accused of rape.
And I don't think the judge's decision was discretionary; from what I've read, his hand was forced per the rape shield statute.
so the joe rogan thread going to go 100 pages and set political forum records?
Prior false rape allegations have no relevance to a case involving rape allegations? That says nothing about the accuser's credibility? Doesn't the accused have a cons utional right to confrontation, including the right to get into the accuser's prior attempts of "crying wolf?" Or other evidence of motive to lie?
Sounds to me like Counselor Crayola's standard is if a girl is promiscuous or lies about her sexual encounters to her parents then she should get what's coming to her. He would fit right in over in India and the Middle East.
So vy do you date dishrags, do you dissemble and lie to your girlfriends, or do you abstain?
I won't take your word for it, especially since you sound less than convinced about your own example.
feel free to prove me wrong
I'm all ears, WH ...
burden is yours to make your own points.
feel free to prove your own point about promiscuity per se being germane to rape trials. I'm all ears.
vy doesn't want to discuss the prejudices that rape shield laws are intended to protect victims from. I also know that judicial review is not so cut and dried and oversimplified. But reductio ad absurdum and posturing with "prove me wrong!" sure has me convinced.
He's supposed to be a lawyer though and he makes arguments like that repeatedly. I can beg questions too.
lol burden of proof.
You're a terrible lawyer.
If you believe in a fair trial, this post is horribly and laughably wrong. Only a slimy defense attorney would try to drag an accuser's sex life into the courtroom.
Burden was met. The law disallows admission of evidence showing the accuser made prior false rape accusations. I don't know what you're not convinced of, but technically, the burden's now yours to come up with something to refute. You seem to continue avoiding this point. Why's that?
As for the issue of promiscuity, evidence of how the accuser "consents" to sex is highly relevant when the whole issue is whether consent was lacking. Disallowing this evidence is particularly troublesome in those jurisdictions where the accused can't even offer evidence of his prior sexual history with the accuser.
Funny that Blake and Fuzzy can take the time to type whilst 69'ing each other.
vy you so dumb
You use a lot of words here. But you've said absolutely nothing.
Another poignant and beautifully articulated response from Blake. Bravo.
Says dude that has Joe Rogan speak for him.
Srsly, Blake has spent a good 4 pages of this thread to saying lol joe rogan and vy you so dumb. You'd think someone with nothing substantive to contribute would have better things to do with his time, no?
Srsly, I'm just here to lol at your dumb posts. But good use of your time sucking on Joe Rogan's teets
Where'd he speak for me? I posted some clips from his podcast for discussion purposes. A discussion happened. Just because you're too stupid to add anything doesn't mean J
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions