Quote:
Originally posted by HighOnAcid
I was listening to the Radio on the way into work this morning and they were talking about the Kobe Bryant rape trial. They are in preliminary hearing right now and the defense is trying to make a case regarding the victim's sexually deviant past. They said that her past is admissible in court because it proves something. What does it prove? That she's a normal 19 year old? 
Regardless if the girl was the town hoe and slept with every dude in Colorado, it shouldn't reflect that incident. If a girl says, "No" and you continue, it's rape. Plain and Simple. Even if you pay a prostitute money for sex and she changes her mind, that's still rape.
"Oh, but your Honor, she was wearing a hot mini-skirt and I know she's had sex with a lot of people so it wasn't rape. She was asking for it." - That's such bullshit. Rape is Rape and someone's past should have absolutely nothing to do with the case. 
|
The defense is shooting for reasonable doubt. They're saying she had sex with men the day before and after the supposed rape. It makes her story less sound if she was having sex again right after being rape. Plus, legally, they can't definitely say it was Kobe Bryant who caused the physical trauma if there were other partners involved within days.