Why Should A Girl's History Be Brought Up in a Rape Trial?
 

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? :mad:

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. :2 cents:

cause alot of girls are just lying tramps and emotional fuckups ..

Many girls hold guys hostage with a rape charge that never happened ..

I can remember shortly after dumping this bitch for a much prettier girl , rape rumours start circling the toiwn cause shes a tramp .

thats why .

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. :2 cents:

It certainly plays in to the trial, Kobe needs to be guilty without a reasonable doubt to be convicted of some serious charges, and why are we supposed to believe this girl? Should we take her account of events as they occured?

In fact there was a girl who falsely accused a few people of rape here in NYC a few years ago. So its not exatly like its unheard of.

That's about it !!

Heard too many times now about guys getting shit for something they didn't do. So it makes sense to look at it further...

You all made very valid points/opinions.

The reason it comes up is.. in rape trials its almost always her word against his.. if she isn't credible. the defense has to get that out there.

Do you really think it has never happened that a girl lied about being raped? Do you really think no one has ever tried to extort money out of a celebrity.. or anyone really with money by doing something like this?

The "victim" has enough things working in her favor.. just the ACCUSATION of rape is enough to convict him int he minds of a lot of people.. and if he was a teacher or something, he would have lost his job.

Not to mention if a girl does charge a guy with rape.. makes him go through this whole ordeal, and its found she lied or whatever.. NOTHING ever happens to the girl, legally.. why is that anyways?

It demonstrates the person's character. If a person on trial for murder had a violent history, you don't think it should play a factor in the trial??

You all have made some very valid points. However, a girl's sexual history should not be a big factor in determining her credibility. Personal history of mental illness, false claims, abuse...those are the histories they should be looking at. Not sexual history.

If you follow this logic and the defense is successful at undermining this girl's credibility through her promiscuous past then woudln't that make every porn actress, professional or amatuer succeptable to rape? If a guy rapes a porn actress he can take the defense that she has a "promiscuous past" and her credibility would be horribly under-mined. A precedence has been set and defensive teams across the nation are taking this stance.

That's the reason I don't follow that logic. When a girl says, "no" it's time to stop. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You stop.

Actually, the defense is trying to find out why her panties had semen from a different man on them when she went to the police. The defense wants to show that the injuries to her genitals was there before Kobe banged her.

If she had sex with men right before Kobe then there's reasonable doubt about whether the injuries are from him.

If she had sex with men right after Kobe (which some witness is supposed to have alleged), then she is obviously not suffering from typical rape trauma and this could call her credibility into question.

Basically, this is a "his word vs hers" case, so the the defense wants to show that 1) The injuries could have come from someone other than Kobe, and 2) That if Kobe raped her, she didn't act like it.

It remains to be seen if the defense can demonstrate reasonable doubt or not, but the judge decided to have a closed session to determine what evidence about the girl's sex life he'd let the jury listen to -- obviously if she was a total whore 5 years ago, that's not material to whether she was raped in this specific case or not.

But, if she had sex with 3 men the night after Kobe supposedly raped her, well that might undermine her story a little.

So, as long as they're not smearing her unfairly, I don't have a problem with it. Remember, the jury is only going to hear evidence about her sex life that the judge thinks is relevant to this specific case.

and if kobi had had a history or rape... that shouldent be admisable either..?
2 way street sometimes the traffic sucks:glugglug

Like I said, the only sexual history the judge is going to admit is the sexual history relevant to this specific case. That is, was she fucking other guys immediately before and after Kobe -- if so, maybe they gave her the injuries.

Courts have already established that porn actresses and prostitutes CAN be raped. So sexual promiscuity is not the main focus of what the defense is looking for. And the judge isn't going to allow all of that shit anyway.

Becuz injuries might not have been from KOBE

Ignoring all the other posts and answering your topic title:

Because lawyers are low down dogs that do anything to win.
What they try to prove it the "credability" of the girl in question and flame her on that point.

It's simple, Rape often comes down to her word aginst his.. A person's background helps a jury know what type of person they are dealing with, and if they should be trusted.

you can argue why and why not as to wether it should be admisable. But sadly enough it has hapend where a girl has lied and even gone as far as to fake evadence. So its a lawyers job to either prove or disprove that idea.

Its not a plesent case to come to cout to begin with... so the arguments present arnt going to be either.:2 cents: :helpme

EXACTLY:thumbsup

If she sleeps around ALOT...the percentage that a single guy is to blame for anything is greatly diminished. Example...sleep with 4 guys in a row, get pregnant, who's the daddy?

everyone should have a right to face their accuser, there are some bullshit anti-men laws on the books regarding rape accusations.

A girl' history is brought up in a rape trial because they are trying to attack her credibility. If she's known to be a slut, then the defense can say that she was probably not raped at all because she was leading on the man to do something to her.

lol

I think they should concentrate on what had happened,
the rape, I mean. and not the fuckin' past. It will
only keep the trial longer and justice will be more impossible
to find.

ur just not getting it dude. who says she said no? the defense isnt trying to find an excuse for kobe to keep having sex with her after she said no, their trying to show evidence that her story is a bunch of bullshit.

I think the past should be taken into concideration but not as the basis for judgement. A lot of little sluts want to sleep with someone famous and then just say they were raped. That way they can make some nice money too.

Rape sounds like he took her and fucked her against her will. What's if you're fucking and then she says she wants to stop but you continue? Is that rape?
Surely the second is no where near as severe as the first and it is very hard to determine the truth. I'm not saying her past will determine the truth but it may give an indication in the case of doubt.