How would the jury rule in a rape case if the victim is a porn model?
 

With all of these "No means No" threads starting up, it piqued my curiousity and I wonder how a jury would rule? Years ago if a girl got raped the defense would use the "she dressed provacative so she deserved it" angle. How would the defense fight a rape accusation that occurred at an adult-related event? Would they say that she's an adult model so she deserved to get assaulted? It was her fault for putting herself into that situation and men cannot control their animal instincts?

I agree that no means no and anyone with a hint of decency wouldn't even come to the point where they had to be told no. However, there are stalkers out there that plan to attend these adult events thinking that adult models are easy targets. I have know people that went to adult conventions that weren't even in the business just to "hook up" with the girls.

What are your thoughts on this?

Exactly the same!

I beg to differ. I think it wouldn't be the same at all. If a woman was raped at a Real Estate convention it would be looked at A LOT differently if she were raped at an adult pornography convention. :2 cents:

Supposedly, a woman's sexual history is not supposed to be even brought up at a rape trial..I fear in reality that is not the case.

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't get the logic that says "oh well, she's easy, so it probably wasn't rape"......if she IS easy, why would she lie about having sex with a guy, ya know? What's one more, lol?

not sure how the jury would react. If I had models at the convention I would be keeping a very close eye on them. Not sure why these NO means NO issues happened if their managers or escorts/body guards where around.

In theory yes in reality it is brought up.

No is no. Plain and simple. Regardless of who you are or how you a dressed. Court could care less if you do porn. Now if you are saying you were raped during a film, that would be a little different.

No good lawyer would let that stand in the way. Rape is rape.

It should make no difference where it happened but of course it would :2 cents:

You heard it here first and thus it must be true.

I think the key thing in such an occurence is to tell someone immeadiately. You always hear about people waiting to tell. Worst possible thing. Only makes your case harder to prove. If you tell someone right after and call the police, I dont think you will have a problem.

probably one of the reasons so many women DON'T report rape when it happens is because of this type of thing

yes, no means no, but when it comes to the legal system, the twisting, the spins.. the lawyers will do whatever it takes to get their client OFF the charges - if that means tearing down the reputation of the victim then so be it (this kind of thing is probably one of the reasons a lot of people dislike lawyers :2 cents: )

Unfortunately we don't live in a black/white kind of world, so each individual case could have a different outcome - though I'd say that the defense lawyer would no doubt latch on to the adult/porn angle and play it for all its worth that doesn't mean the jury wouldn't see through it and realise that if a woman says no, she MEANS no, even if she's fucked 5000 men prior to that ONE.

We can at least HOPE that our fellow man/woman would do the right thing and judge each case based on evidence of the crime rather than reputation of the victim.

I have heard the same thing but what if the rapist has a history of being addicted to pornography? I'm sure that would be brought up in court. Also, I'm sure the defense would be struggling to get as conservative a jury as humanly possible. One that would shun the adult industry.

Most states have had rape shield laws in place for decades.

In Florida, the rape shield law as it applies to this discussion is:
1) Victims testimony does not need to be corroborated.
2) Victims sexual history between any other person than the defendant is not admissible.
3) Reputation evidence, prior sexual conduct and manner of dress are not admissible except under very limited circumstances.

Most challenges by defendants to the rape shield law center on whether defendant was the person who was responsible for the semen/disease/injury. Evidentiary hearings as to admissibility are always first done while the jury is taken out of the room. It is very difficult to get this type of evidence admitted.

I am not sure; all I know it will be herculian battle for the prosecution's side.

The accused still needs a defense though. I'm not going to say it's wrong to question the reputation or intent of the alleged victim.

If you're going to send somebody to prison for 20 years you better get it right. There are far to many instances where people have been sent to prison soley on some other type of grievance played out by the victim or misidentification, etc.

A jury conservative enough to be against pornography would not be liberal enough to try to set the precedent that rape is OK if you're addicted to pornography. :upsidedow

it all depends does the guy have a regular lawyer or a kobe level one? lol

A woman's tryin' to make decisions, we should leave 'em a choice.