Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Push-Pull
10 bucks says that the defendant's lawyer will most definitely use words like or similar to "slut", "promiscuous", "tramp", "tease", and so on. Do these words not undermine the trial as well?
|
Don't rape shield laws prohibit the defendant from bringing in the sexual history of an alleged victim in a rape case?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Push-Pull
If the case for the defendant is so strong, then her using "he raped me" should be of little value to the jury. I think that most people can make a reasonable judgment with the evidence provided, and that taking away wording only makes it tougher for *actual* rape victims to get justice through our court systems.
|
The burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove his innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove his guilt. The defense should only be required to show "reasonable doubt" to win the case, the prosecutor should have to prove that he committed the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Given that this case is a "he said" "she said" case where the dispute isn't whether or not there was sexual contact between but whether or not said contact was consensual. Her getting on the stand and saying "he raped me" isn't really evidence, it's simply repeating the accusation for emotional effect. It should be more along the lines of her needing to prove that she was raped. (ie that the sex was non-consensual).