Hello Dr. Penton,
Not to side bar but I am a little curious about this comment ...
According to Common Law, a person is generally held innocent until proven guilty. But recently, as a result of pressure from radical feminists that tradition has been somewhat eroded in rape cases in certain jurisdictions in both Canada and the United States.
As a guy I am kinda ... well .... curious just what you meant there. Thus, I must apologize to you in advance .... but ... I assume you are discussing a relatively new law that indicates a woman's past and present sex life is not being admissible in a court of law during a criminal rape case?
I always thought that the law that you discuss (which was originally in case law form and then put into statute such as the Criminal Code of Canada) was enacted for the same reasons as how a crimminal's past record is usually not to be used against him/her in a trial to determine guilt or innocence. Usually, past history becomes admissible in a sentencing phase of a criminal trial. The idea of course is to ensure that only relevant evidence relating to the crime itself is presented to the Judge/jury so as to not "contaminate" the Judges/jury's minds. Much the same as some bad a$$ looking crime photos of child murder are not admissible.
The court must make a "reasonable" determination on the evidence. For example in rape there are certain parts of women's private area that bruise differently than other parts when consentual sex occurs (some call it - "interpreting the clock"). Does it confirm rape by itself? No. But, it is a good indication of rape. Just like a statement from the victim is an "indication" of rape. You add to that "semen" evidence, if any, add to that other "factual" evidence such as other parts of the woman's body being brused, scratches on the man and then of course the statement from the "accused". All of the evidence is "tested" in court through "evidence in chief" and "cross examination". And based on the admitted "evidence" with the points of law, a court makes a final "reasonable" determination.
I was lead to believe what happened in a lot of cases (and I thought all of the liberal and conservative courts of the USA and Canada agree) was that defence lawyers used "ad homenim" tactics on a woman's sex life and style that had absolutely nothing to do with the case to "dress" the woman down - make her look like a "slut" (pardon the language) as one famed counsel who shall remain nameless told me.
You, Dr. Penton, personally watched Colin Stevenson, WTS lawyer, bring up Vicki's sex life as an adult in her second day of testifying in court. Vicki's adult sex life had nothing to do with her father raping her as a younger child. Mr. Mark, lawyer for Vicki, made an absolute huge mistake in not objecting to that line of questioning by Mr. Stevenson. Even the Judge knew it but it was up to Mr. Mark, as Vicki's attorney, to object and the Judge couldn't do anything. Of course the attack backfired on Stevenson and for those paying attention in court, the Judge hinted about "ad hominem" attacks not being relevant when Mott-Trille was on the stand and in closing statements.
So .... in these past cases, I thought the point the defence lawyers were trying to make to the Judge and juries in rape cases in the past (and sucessfully I might add in some cases) was that these women wanted to have sex all the time, were like "hookers", and thus, they must have wanted to be raped. I also thought what the courts finally concluded was ... listen up defence counsel, when it comes to a victim's credibility in her statement, you should be focusing on .... is this woman likely to tell a "lie" that she was raped, and you, defence counsel should not be focusing on whether she liked sex or what type of sex she practiced!
I also thought the court indicated - liking sex or different sex from the supposed norm is not the same as telling a lie and thus, the line of questioning about one's sex life is inadmissible in a court of law. I also thought the courts went on to say that if you find evidence of lying in her past then that is admissible to whether she is telling the truth on the stand, and that is what you, defence counsel, should focus on as a defence for the defendant in the case when discussing the "statement" of the victim.
Oddly I did not read where radical feminists by themselves changed the law? I know they were involved but it took a combined effort of victims (both men and women), lawyers, criminal attorneys who dealt with many of these cases, independent court rulings (upheld on appeal) that created new case law and government actions to change the law.
So I am kinda curious as to why the law (if I have the right one) is critically wrong?
I look forward to your comments.
hawk
Edited by - hawkaw on 29 October 2002 15:40:22
