Promiscuity claims in court 'add to rape myths'

Nevyn

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/promiscuity-claims-in-court-add-to-rape-myths-2016492.html

Promiscuity claims in court 'add to rape myths'

By Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

Saturday January 16 2010

ALMOST half the rape suspects who try to introduce evidence of the victim's previous sexual history at trial claim that their victim is "promiscuous" or displays sexually suggestive behaviour.

A new study on separate legal representation for victims in rape trials has revealed that seven out of 10 rape suspects who wish to use the victim's "sexual experience" in their defence are granted permission to do so. In Ireland, lawyers acting for rape suspects must seek a judge's permission to introduce "sexual experience" evidence at a trial

Almost half the suspects who do so claim that their victim is promiscuous, while a similar percentage try to rely on the fact that he/she had previous sexual relations with the accused or others.

In a tiny number of cases, suspects have tried to utilise the fact that a woman uses contraception to justify an examination of her sexual history before a jury

"Our research shows that judges grant defence applications to introduce evidence about the sexual history of rape victims very frequently," said Senator Ivana Bacik, who led the study commissioned by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre (DRCC).

"This is despite the highly prejudicial nature of the reasons being offered by the defence. In particular we found one commonly-used defence argument was that the victim was "promiscuous".

"This sort of argument, unfortunately, strengthens the myths about rape and has potential to undermine the victim's evidence in court."

In 2001 the law was changed to allow rape victims to apply for legal aid to enable her or him to argue against the introduction of evidence relating to past sexual history.

Since then, rape suspects must notify a complainant that they wish to adduce evidence of the victim's sexual experience.

To date, the legal aid procedure has only been used in a minority of cases, but numbers are increasing as more victims become aware of the procedure.

Ms Bacik's research has revealed that one fifth of complainants who are notified that a suspect wishes to introduce sexual experience evidence seek separate legal representation to oppose the application.

The research, which was conducted in collaboration with the DPP's office and the Civil Legal Aid Board, will be presented to President Mary McAleese today at a special conference organised by the DRCC.

The conference, which will be chaired by High Court Judge Paul Carney, will also be addressed by Mrs McAleese and James Hamilton, Director of Public Prosecutions.

The research was based on rape and sexual offence cases that were tried before the Central Criminal Court between 2003 and 2009.

- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

"Promiscuity claims" ffs why does the more partners a woman have mean that
she is of less 'value' and there for raping her is less of a big deal?

I don't care if a woman has slept with a 1,000 men and even 30 in one night
if she still has the right to say no and for that to be respected and not to be raped.

krudler

Thats pretty fcuked up, so if a girl gets out of a long term relationship, sleeps around a bit then gets raped by someone, she was clearly asking for it?

DancingDaisy

I think it's such a cop out by those accused. They seem to think that by bringing the victims character into disrepute that they will win the Jury over. It's terrible that at this point in time, this can be seen as a plausible defence, and it does say a certain amount about the mentality of Ireland as a whole.

I think it's also horrible that a woman who has taken a rape case to court then has to sit there and listen while her character is brought into question. I'm pretty angry after reading that article so I apologise if my train of thought is making very little sense.

Lab_Mouse

Its bad form alright.Surely those claims are hearsay?

Like a poster above said so what if she sleeps with 30 people in a month.No means no.

Tragedy

Thaedydal wrote: »

"Promiscuity claims" ffs why does the more partners a woman have mean that
she is of less 'value' and there for raping her is less of a big deal?

You're missing the point, it isn't introduced to show the girl is a slut, so her being raped is less important that someone who doesn't sleep around.

It's "evidence"(and I use that term lightly) introduced to show that the accused is sexually promiscuous and engages in one night stands/no strings attached. It makes claims that she said yes, but changed her mind the next morning more plausible to juries.

I don't care if a woman has slept with a 1,000 men and even 30 in one night
if she still has the right to say no and for that to be respected and not to be raped.

Again, jumping to conclusions and missing the point.


There's a difference between
"She's had sex with 20 guys in the last year, she said no to me and I had sex with her anyway, but sure it's not as if she was a virgin - no real harm done"

and

"We were drunk, kissing in the club, went down an alley way, had sex and the next morning when she sobered up she changed her mind and said it wasn't consensual and she isn't the kind of person who does that. But we can show she is a sexually promiscuous woman who engages in this kind of behaviour frequently".

The latter can be a lie, but that's why that kind of evidence can be introduced.

Nevyn

Having to take the stand and under oath be questioned about ever sexual encounter you may have had frankly is enough to put a lot of victims off going to court esp if family and friends may be present.

Tragedy

Thaedydal wrote: »

Having to take the stand and under oath be questioned about ever sexual encounter you may have had

Where in the article does it say that it goes into that sort of detail? Do you have any evidence to suggest that that is a common occurence, where the complainant spends hours recalling their sexual history in lurid detail because the defence says "The complainant is sexually promiscuous"?

frankly is enough to put a lot of victims off going to court esp if family and friends may be present.

Is that not what "In 2001 the law was changed to allow rape victims to apply for legal aid to enable her or him to argue against the introduction of evidence relating to past sexual history.Since then, rape suspects must notify a complainant that they wish to adduce evidence of the victim's sexual experience." is designed to stop?


You completely missed the point of the article in a kneejerk reaction, it doesn't help whatsoever to spread hysteria or myths.

southsiderosie

Tragedy wrote: »

You're missing the point, it isn't introduced to show the girl is a slut, so her being raped is less important that someone who doesn't sleep around.

It's "evidence"(and I use that term lightly) introduced to show that the accused is sexually promiscuous and engages in one night stands/no strings attached. It makes claims that she said yes, but changed her mind the next morning more plausible to juries.

But the bigger point is that no, it DOES NOT MATTER what a woman did before because even if she has a one night stand 51 out of 52 weeks of the year, if on that 52nd week she says no, NO MEANS NO.

Tragedy wrote: »

There's a difference between
"She's had sex with 20 guys in the last year, she said no to me and I had sex with her anyway, but sure it's not as if she was a virgin - no real harm done"

and

"We were drunk, kissing in the club, went down an alley way, had sex and the next morning when she sobered up she changed her mind and said it wasn't consensual and she isn't the kind of person who does that. But we can show she is a sexually promiscuous woman who engages in this kind of behaviour frequently".

The latter can be a lie, but that's why that kind of evidence can be introduced.

Why does every single thread about rape on the boards turn into "and the next morning she changed her mind"?

How much longer until the "Better to let 99 rapists go free than let one innocent man go to jail" post appears on this thread?

The social stigma from filing rape charges is a significant enough deterrent that the vast majority of women who are raped don't actually report it. And most women still aren't given the benefit of the doubt - by the court system, by juries, and by society at large.

Buceph

southsiderosie wrote: »

The social stigma from filing rape charges is a significant enough deterrent that the vast majority of women who are raped don't actually report it. And most women still aren't given the benefit of the doubt - by the court system, by juries, and by society at large.

So you want people to go to jail on the basis of suspicions? Great world you live in. Lets all live in a police state while we're at it.

I agree that in the majority of the cases the womens sexual history shouldn't be brought in, unless it has a direct baring on the case in hand. But to then say that the woman should be believed when there's no compelling evidence is a huge step in the wrong direction.

southsiderosie

Buceph wrote: »

So you want people to go to jail on the basis of suspicions? Great world you live in. Lets all live in a police state while we're at it.

I agree that in the majority of the cases the womens sexual history shouldn't be brought in, unless it has a direct baring on the case in hand. But to then say that the woman should be believed when there's no compelling evidence is a huge step in the wrong direction.

When did I say anything about people going to jail on suspicions? My point is, whenever there is a discussion about rape on the boards, people immediately jump to "false accusations" without acknowledging that the vast majority of rapists are never actually accused. And a big part of why they aren't reported is because of the "slut-shaming" involved.

Buceph

southsiderosie wrote: »

When did I say anything about people going to jail on suspicions? My point is, whenever there is a discussion about rape on the boards, people immediately jump to "false accusations" without acknowledging that the vast majority of rapists are never actually accused. And a big part of why they aren't reported is because of the "slut-shaming" involved.

You said that women should be given the benefit of the doubt. What that means is that accusations have more weight than evidence, which is a ridiculous place to be in. You can't change one part of the process and hope that it has no effects elsewhere. There's a reason the law is as it is, and those reasons have built up for hundreds of years. To abandon due process is ridiculous.

southsiderosie wrote: »

The social stigma from filing rape charges is a significant enough deterrent that the vast majority of women who are raped don't actually report it. And most women still aren't given the benefit of the doubt - by the court system, by juries, and by society at large.

southsiderosie

Buceph wrote: »

You said that women should be given the benefit of the doubt. What that means is that accusations have more weight than evidence, which is a ridiculous place to be in. You can't change one part of the process and hope that it has no effects elsewhere. There's a reason the law is as it is, and those reasons have built up for hundreds of years. To abandon due process is ridiculous.

Let me clarify. When I say women should be given the benefit of the doubt, I mean that the default response to a rape charge should not be "well, what is her sexual history"? I'm not talking about a trial, I'm talking about the process of a woman even weighing the decision to press charges - which the majority fail to do, because there seems to be some widely-held social assumptions about her character that are immediately called into question. And this definitely isn't meant to be a statement in support of false accusations - I think women who are found to have made up incidents of sexual or physical assault should be prosecuted - not only does this destroy the lives of the accused, but it makes things even harder for those women who have actually been assaulted. Unfortunately things aren't as cut and dry when the question is over whether or not sex was consensual or not, which is what makes so many of these cases (when they are actually brought to trial) so difficult.

As for the law building up over hundreds of years, the majority of that time, in most Western democracies, the law has not been on the side of women. There is still a huge aspect of "well, was she asking for it?" that permeates the way that the legal establishment handled rape cases; it was barely ten years ago that an Italian court ruled that a woman wearing jeans could not have been raped.

Tragedy

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the bigger point is that no, it DOES NOT MATTER what a woman did before

It does to the defendant, if his case is "She slept with me and changed her mind the next morning".
To him and his barrister it does matter what her sexual history is, if that's their case.

because even if she has a one night stand 51 out of 52 weeks of the year, if on that 52nd week she says no, NO MEANS NO.

Innocent until proven guilty, and the accused is allowed to mount a defense.

No-ones arguing no doesn't mean no, where did you get that from?

Why does every single thread about rape on the boards turn into "and the next morning she changed her mind"?

This isn't a thread about rape, this is a thread about "Promiscuity claims in court 'add to rape myths'"

Did you not read the title or the OP?

How much longer until the "Better to let 99 rapists go free than let one innocent man go to jail" post appears on this thread?

Off topic much?

The social stigma from filing rape charges is a significant enough deterrent that the vast majority of women who are raped don't actually report it. And most women still aren't given the benefit of the doubt - by the court system, by juries, and by society at large.

The defendant and his legal team should give the person accusing them of rape the benefit of the doubt?

What are you talking about?

Odysseus

southsiderosie wrote: »

When did I say anything about people going to jail on suspicions? My point is, whenever there is a discussion about rape on the boards, people immediately jump to "false accusations" without acknowledging that the vast majority of rapists are never actually accused. And a big part of why they aren't reported is because of the "slut-shaming" involved.

Firstly, I'm putting my hands up, its a vile crime that can leave a person in a bad place for a very long time, I have worked with quite a few rape victims, now my clients would have other pathologies, mostly addiction issues, but not all. I have had quite a few cases over they years, both sexes. In my opinion those people never when down the legal road for other subjective or for want of a better word personality issues, not because of the "sult-shaming" issue.

I not saying that some people won't report for that reason, but I would have issues around accepting the vast majority. Everybodys experience of rape and the impact it has on them is different. Yes of course the are alot similarities, but the trauma and its impact differs.

Personally, I think past sexual history on both side should be viewed in the case if relavent.

At the end of the day, whilst I have years of experience with with people around sexual violence, assualt and abuse I'm not claiming to be an expert on it, far from it believe me. But our legal system is based upon innocent until proven guilty, and a person accused of any crime should be allowed to call upon any subject that may be relavent. Now the sad thing here is that gulity people will use any resource to try get off from a guilty verdict, and that's where the abuse of our system is. At the end of the day their solicitor has two objectives, to achieve a innocent verdict or the shortest possible sentence. My undering is that they are not concerned if the person commited the crime, their goal is the above, and they will use anything they can to achieve that result. Sadly in these cases this is were your point comes into play


However, whilst saying the above I am thinking here where would it be relevant. I can think of a few examples, but its quite limited. At the end of the day no means no, and the amount of sexual partners is not relevant. However, I possess a certain amount of knowledge around legal issues, I also have worked with abusers and serious criminals, so I may know abit more around the way the court system works than the average person [why would they know if the don't have it in their life], but in my opinion, I would see it as limited, so for legal terms I don't know what could be deemed relevant.

Might post may seem at tad contradictory, but's because I really believe I don't have an answer in terms of saying a yes or a no that would apply to all cases.

994

A lot of rape cases are built on he said/she said, and if the man claims "We just met and had sex", the jury have to decide, how likely is it that she would sleep with a random stranger?

But the bigger point is that no, it DOES NOT MATTER what a woman did before because even if she has a one night stand 51 out of 52 weeks of the year, if on that 52nd week she says no, NO MEANS NO.

But what if there's no proof beyond her testimony that she said "no"?

Jessibelle

What if there's no proof beyond his testimony that she said "yes"?

Whether we like it or not, as a society, a woman that sleeps around is still seen as a slut, whereas a man is just sowing his oats, and doing what comes naturally. To that end, no matter how open minded a jury may be, when a case goes to court there can be an element of that pre-judgement about it. And it's rare that that pre judgement comes down on the side of the woman.