(no subject)
Aug. 5th, 2003 09:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xtremeroswelliaOk. So I read this article: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/216/oped/Issues_of_fairness_raised_on_rape_shield_+.shtml .
And honest to God, I was trying to be objective, I was. However, when I got to the last paragraph where the author of the article all but agrees with the 'New Jersey Supreme Court ruling which allows evidence of past sexual contact between the accuser and the accused to be used at trial', then I had a problem. A big one.
Why is that admissible in court? Just because a person has sex with someone once willingly, doesn't mean that they are from then on ALWAYS willing to have sex with that other person. If person A and person B have sex one time and it's completey consensual, great. If person A decides that since they've already had sex with person B once or even several times, that it's okay to have sex with person B without person B's consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter if they had a past sexual history. That proves NOTHING. End of story.
And honest to God, I was trying to be objective, I was. However, when I got to the last paragraph where the author of the article all but agrees with the 'New Jersey Supreme Court ruling which allows evidence of past sexual contact between the accuser and the accused to be used at trial', then I had a problem. A big one.
Why is that admissible in court? Just because a person has sex with someone once willingly, doesn't mean that they are from then on ALWAYS willing to have sex with that other person. If person A and person B have sex one time and it's completey consensual, great. If person A decides that since they've already had sex with person B once or even several times, that it's okay to have sex with person B without person B's consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter if they had a past sexual history. That proves NOTHING. End of story.
