Jun 10
Rape Laws
One of the eclectic dinner table conversations we had in Long Beach Island concerned rape laws in this country. Someone “in the legal know” explained to us that recently rape laws have become more favorable for victims as there previously needed to be some sort of corroboration to an allegation in order to secure a conviction. Now an uncorroborated allegation is legally sufficient to send a man to jail for life (if the jury believes the victim). Additionally rape shield laws prevent the defendant from examining the victims past (possibly sketchy) behavior in front of a jury.
At the risk of alienating most of my (probably very few) female readers, I find these laws to be pretty outrageous and sort of ignorant of all the evil in the world. Psychopaths are capable of coming off so well and lying in such a cool, convincing matter that Ted Bundy was thought to be a future senator when he was in high school. While the traditional view of a psychopath is that he is male, as we in the poker world know, there are many female ones as well. These people can be charming and convincing, certainly sly enough to convince a jury that somebody raped them. The fact that a psychopath heavy on vendetta and light on evidence can end a mans life by simply being a convincing liar on the stand terrifies me. Further, for the defense to not be able to delve into the alleged victims past seems to render the “he” impotent in any sort of “he said, she said” debate.
One of my friends sisters friends (and hopefully my friend now too though maybe not due to this discussion) took exception to my opinion and felt that the laws were appropriate since it has historically been difficult for women to report rapes. I sympathize with the plight of women and any other protected classes, but I simply cannot stomach the fact that a potentially crazy woman (or man for that matter) has so much power over anyone he/she hates simply because he/she is a very good liar.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
women are not a minority you retard.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Sorry for misspeaking Bob, I meant protected classes and updated it, I hope to one day be as smart as you
June 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Good liars are very often able to get away with more than what most would call “fair.”
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 am
Blog more COW
July 9th, 2008 at 9:34 am
So it took a while to get here, but
now I hope it’s not too late to say:
Liberace’s naughty bits called and they want
their hatred of women back.
HEY OH
Your friend,
Lily
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Could not agree more with you Steve. There was a recent incident in Texas that was reported on CNN where a woman was having an affair in front of her house. When the husband (who kept calling her but didn’t answer) arrived from work and found them having sex, she called out RAPE! The boyfriend, ran out of the car naked when the husband pulled a gun and fatally Shot him. At trial, she was found guilty to what I believe was manslaughter (not sure about the exact charge)?
What would’ve happened if the police arrived with the husband and she called out rape? Would the truth of the affair ever be believed by a Jury?
August 12th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Check out this story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_re_us/dna_rape_case. Talk about a bad beat. Go to prison for 18 years for something that you know you did not do.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Hi stevebets, rape law, as with all law is extremely complicated it would take days, weeks just to explain the basics,this was my speciality when i studied law at university, firstly let me start by saying an allegation is most certainly not enough to send someone to jail, or even get them prosecuted, we dont prosecute on hearsay or without any EVIDENCE.Giving everyone the right to a FAIR TRIAL is the basic starting point, how is one to do that if a persons past is dragged up? Well RELEVENCE is the key, the fact that the alleged may have stole a bottle of vodka several years ago isnt really RELEVENT, neither is the fact that the victim has had several sexual partners, maybe in the weeks leading up to the alleged rape, how to determine what is RELEVENT is a matter for the judge before the trial starts.It all depends on how SIMILAR the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence are, that determines there RELEVENCE, this works for both alleged and victim, maybe he has been convicted of a sexual offence ten years previous, should this now be addmitted into court, what affect would this have on the jury? If the victim has slept with several partners lets say (A),(B) and (C), during a holiday, maybe after a 10 year faithful marrige, that has no bearing on whether (D) raped her several weeks later on her way home from work. It is RELEVENT FACTS which are given to the jury, and it is there job to give these FACTS “WEIGHT”,and to balance them out.The problem used to be that sexually active women were somehow treated with less CREDEBILITY, than other women, this lead to a low conviction rate and a fear of women coming forward for fear of humiliation,by dragging up there sexual past in front of friends and family. therfore instead of trying to discredit women for the sake of it, we have to discriminate, find out what is RELEVENT, and try to ensure a fair trial all round. The law takes years to advance it was only 20 years ago that a man couldn`t be convicted of raping his wife. T.J.Kingston (LLB) BA HONOURS LAW. pokerstars username OCEANS34.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:30 am
ps congrats on the 25k HU win steve great job.