Quote: (12-16-2014 10:44 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:
MLS still taught it, but when you study criminal law it quickly becomes apparent that the defence best protects their client by suggesting to the jury that the alleged victim is a lying slut. There are checks and balances built into the system to try to mitigate this but it is essentially a zero-sum legal battle where you win by damaging the opponent's credibility.
In rape cases there will be men who are let off the hook because either the woman doesn't report to the police (most women) or the evidence isn't strong enough to find the man guilty. Of course the reverse can happen but as the prosecution has the evidential burden they will many times fail to satisfy a high threshold even if the jury thinks on the balance of probabilities the victim was indeed raped.
The reason for treating sexual cases more sensitively than say assault or murder cases is because the victim will v commonly be portrayed by the defence as having 'asked for it' whereas in murder or aggravated assault you are more concerned with the mens rea or mental intent of the perpetrator than the actions of the victim. You are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by a family member or close partner than a random person or looser affiliate which can really fuck up a victim on a deep psychological level.
None of that is an argument for leaving rape/sexual assault law out of the law school curriculum. Even if you don't believe it would you construct the best (concise) argument in favor of doing so?
If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts. - Camille Paglia