Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i guess more in general...
one of the big problems right now is admissability of evidence. i mentioned training for judges/prosecutors before...i think that would be a big step forward.
stronger sheild laws would keep previous history, what the person was wearing, and other irrelevant and prejudicial information from being admitted.
i'd also consider if previous accusations could be admitted in certain circumstances.
|
The fact that previous accusations are in most states not admissable sent my uncle to prison for 3 years.
He dumped and threw-out his live-in g/f. (She refused to hold a job, or do anything to support herself, or pay rent...etc.) She said he raped her as a way of getting revenge. All of the people involved in the case on the cops side of things knew she had sent atleast 2 other guys to the big house for petty bs revenge, but they could not bring this info to anyones attention due to a shield law.
I myself suffered several years thorugh HS due to my ex g/fs bestfriend telling everyone i beat up my g/f and raped her. Everyone believed it, despite the fact she had no marks, told people it was bs, etc.
So i would tend to agree that the accusation is more than enough to destroy someones rep.
So, while on the one hand i agree that things need to change, i would be very hesitant to give the prosecution a free hand.
Personally, i would like to see rape trials handled according to an inquiring model, rather than the adversarial model, but that would mean an entirely seperate legal system, so i don't think that would really be practical.