The Jovanovich Internet-Sexual Assault Case
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
kotori
Fool of Fortune
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Posts
- 28,474
All right, maybe I'm glad I didn't go to law school afterall.
I guess you need to explain the "Rape Shield Law." I was thinking of the "blue dot" in the William Kennedy Smith trial, but the "complainant" was there in court testifying. What is the reason her e-mails and IMs were originally excluded?
I guess you need to explain the "Rape Shield Law." I was thinking of the "blue dot" in the William Kennedy Smith trial, but the "complainant" was there in court testifying. What is the reason her e-mails and IMs were originally excluded?
AzureAngel
Love is Life
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Posts
- 2,212
*Takes a breath and frowns.*
kotori
Fool of Fortune
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Posts
- 28,474
So the case hinges on the diference between "ancient" sexual history and "modern" sexual history; i.e, regardless of what she may or may not have done with other people previously, her history with Jovanovich is fair game. That makes sense to me.lavender said:
AzureAngel
Love is Life
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Posts
- 2,212
*Shrugs lightly.* Take the good with the bad.
A very good argument presented. Logically, I'm pressed to side with the defendant's claim on this pertaining to the said exceptions.
A very good argument presented. Logically, I'm pressed to side with the defendant's claim on this pertaining to the said exceptions.
AzureAngel
Love is Life
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Posts
- 2,212
Whether or not she gave him reason to think beforehand that it might be okay doesn't mean that it would be. If someone says no, someone says no. *Shrugs.* Simple as that. But, yes. Much stronger case with it. Not sure how it makes things any less WRONG, but... yeah.
MechaBlade
irrumatio king
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Posts
- 43,346
So are we asking if he can use the emails as a defense?
(though it doesn't matter, because with or without them, it's still abduction and sodomy. The best you can assume is that he was new to BDSM play and didn't know when to ask for consent)
(though it doesn't matter, because with or without them, it's still abduction and sodomy. The best you can assume is that he was new to BDSM play and didn't know when to ask for consent)
Shhh
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Posts
- 202
Defence strategy
The Rape Shield law is designed to prevent the use of previous sexual conduct for the purpose of impugning the character of the complainant. Defence counsel may not suggest that, by virtue of previous unchaste behaviour, the complainant is more likely to have consented, or is less credible.
The question is not can the emails be used AS a defence, but are they relevant TO the defence (answered affirmatively by the court of appeal).
The defence is, apparently, that based on the nature of the communications exchanged, either the complainant consented to the encounter OR that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that she consented.
The trial judge should not have prevented the jury from seeing the emails in question as they bear directly on a number of relevant factors: The credibility of the both the complainant and accused (not in terms of character, but as regards the specific facts of the case), and the reasonableness of the accused's belief that the complainant consented.
Tangental point...the accused's belief that the complainant consented does not HAVE to be reasonable, only honest. Of course, in practical effect, the less reasonable it would be to so believe, the more difficult it would be for a judge or jury to conclude that it was honest.
Given the content of the emails posted, it would seem to me that the accused has a strong defence to raise that he honestly believed the complainant consented. Whether or not such a defence succeeds at trial is another matter.
Imagine, if you will, a series of emails exchanged in which a woman (complainant) describes her fantasy/desire to engage in rape-role play, then agrees to meet the recipient (accused) under some ambiguous circumstance. At this point, what does "no means no" mean? This is the reason that those experienced in the S/M lifestyle (so I am advised) often employ "safe words".
Since no one involved in this series of posts was present at the ALLEGED crime scene during the commission of the ALLEGED offence, nor privy to the evidence presented in court, I would hope that we all might attempt to avoid drawing conclusions about what the just outcome must be.
I doubt anyone disagrees that rapists should be punished, nor that victims should be believed...but neither should innocent men be convicted based on our abhorrence of the crime itself.
In Closing:
NEVER MEET ANYONE FROM THE INTERNET.
That being said, if you want to meet someone, tell someone you trust who, what, where, when and for how long.
Ask verifiable questions about the person you want to meet.
Where do they live? Where do they work? What's their home phone number?
If they're not giving you truthful, verifiable information DO NOT MEET THEM ALONE AT MIDNIGHT BY THE OLD ABANDONED QUARRY!
Meet in a public place. Carry a cellphone. Arrange to call at an agreed upon time.
Take responsibility for your own safety. No one else will.
The Rape Shield law is designed to prevent the use of previous sexual conduct for the purpose of impugning the character of the complainant. Defence counsel may not suggest that, by virtue of previous unchaste behaviour, the complainant is more likely to have consented, or is less credible.
The question is not can the emails be used AS a defence, but are they relevant TO the defence (answered affirmatively by the court of appeal).
The defence is, apparently, that based on the nature of the communications exchanged, either the complainant consented to the encounter OR that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that she consented.
The trial judge should not have prevented the jury from seeing the emails in question as they bear directly on a number of relevant factors: The credibility of the both the complainant and accused (not in terms of character, but as regards the specific facts of the case), and the reasonableness of the accused's belief that the complainant consented.
Tangental point...the accused's belief that the complainant consented does not HAVE to be reasonable, only honest. Of course, in practical effect, the less reasonable it would be to so believe, the more difficult it would be for a judge or jury to conclude that it was honest.
Given the content of the emails posted, it would seem to me that the accused has a strong defence to raise that he honestly believed the complainant consented. Whether or not such a defence succeeds at trial is another matter.
Imagine, if you will, a series of emails exchanged in which a woman (complainant) describes her fantasy/desire to engage in rape-role play, then agrees to meet the recipient (accused) under some ambiguous circumstance. At this point, what does "no means no" mean? This is the reason that those experienced in the S/M lifestyle (so I am advised) often employ "safe words".
Since no one involved in this series of posts was present at the ALLEGED crime scene during the commission of the ALLEGED offence, nor privy to the evidence presented in court, I would hope that we all might attempt to avoid drawing conclusions about what the just outcome must be.
I doubt anyone disagrees that rapists should be punished, nor that victims should be believed...but neither should innocent men be convicted based on our abhorrence of the crime itself.
In Closing:
NEVER MEET ANYONE FROM THE INTERNET.
That being said, if you want to meet someone, tell someone you trust who, what, where, when and for how long.
Ask verifiable questions about the person you want to meet.
Where do they live? Where do they work? What's their home phone number?
If they're not giving you truthful, verifiable information DO NOT MEET THEM ALONE AT MIDNIGHT BY THE OLD ABANDONED QUARRY!
Meet in a public place. Carry a cellphone. Arrange to call at an agreed upon time.
Take responsibility for your own safety. No one else will.
Calamity Jane
Reverend Blue Jeans
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 18,421
I read the whole thread over on the BDSM board... and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Thanks for posting it here too Lavy, I'll post again when I've digested some.
BBD
Former Hoosier Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,848
Re: Defence strategy
I mean, why stop at saying never meet anyone from the internet? If you really really really want to be safe, never ever talk to anyone outside your family. Or never meet anyone that a friend sets you up with, because maybe that friend isn't who they say they are. Maybe you haven't done a background check on them. Did you get a criminal history report on everyone you met growing up?
My point being, people should be careful everywhere. One doesn't need to demonize relationships formed initially over the internet in order to get that point across.
I have to take issue with that first capitalized statement though the rest of your remarks I would agree with for the most part.Shhh said:
I mean, why stop at saying never meet anyone from the internet? If you really really really want to be safe, never ever talk to anyone outside your family. Or never meet anyone that a friend sets you up with, because maybe that friend isn't who they say they are. Maybe you haven't done a background check on them. Did you get a criminal history report on everyone you met growing up?
My point being, people should be careful everywhere. One doesn't need to demonize relationships formed initially over the internet in order to get that point across.
Similar threads
