they have made much of the accuser’s previous suicide attempt (she’s mentally unstable! the allegations are false!), bryant’s good guy image (he seems nice! the allegations are false!), what bryant has at stake with the trial (it would be a shame! the allegations are false!), the “viable witnesses” that allegedly heard a conversation in which the accuser bragged about sleeping with kobe (who cares if the witnesses are sport-loving frat boys? the allegations are false!), among other things.

and then you have the attitude that trish wilson references in her post about warren farrell. he says, “Putting young, beautiful women in front of a heterosexual male is like putting alcohol in front of an alcoholic.”

that’s right. kobe couldn’t help it. he’s a man and men are driven by instinct! they’re animals!

[apologies for the overuse of italics - i'm incensed]

I’m a woman, and I always find it difficult to understand when other women — before a case is tried — assume an alleged date rape victim must be lying or just doesn’t understand that she gave up her right to not have sex when she crossed the man’s threshold.

And I agree with you wholeheartedly that the proposed “not credible” finding against an alleged victim would violate his/her constitutional rights. Unbelievable.

Apples and oranges. People facing accusations other than rape are allowed to confront their accusers in court in accordance with the constitution. People facing charges of rape are disallowed that fundamental right (”Sorry, but the fact that she regularly goes out, gets drunk and has sex with strange men just like you say she did with you is not something we are allowed to bring up in court. The fact that she has a history of filing and later withdrawing charges…well…no, we can’t bring that up either. And the fact that she got so angry when her last boyfriend broke up with her that she filed a false report of abuse/violence/rape/stalking…well…we can’t bring that up either.)

Rape shield laws may be well intentioned but the net effect is to often deny the accused a right to a fair trial. You may not like it but false accusations do happen (Not saying that it happened in this case…) and the rape shield laws often prevent the defense from…being able to defend itself. The laws are clearly unconstitutional.

is it possible that this is a form of denial? she must have done something wrong; otherwise, this could happen to me! (I might not have control over my likelihood of acquaintance rape!)

we all look for reassurance that we have more than a trivial hand in our own safety/happiness…

You can’t bring up past history of witnesses in other types of cases, either. Unless the witness brings it up themself.

Or is my understanding completely wrong?

It’s not hard to believe both of them honestly feel they are being truthful.

Net result, insufficient data for now.

From what I’ve read, if the accuser has previously been responsible for false claims, the defense is permitted to raise the issue at trial. I can’t say I’ve kept up with Kobe, but I don’t think that’s an issue here.

Note: This is called “sarcasm”.

tex: i do think this is a relevant and timely topic. it deals with current, personal, ethical, feminist, and legal issues and continues a discussion that would otherwise go unabatedly (and ‘undebatedly’ is so not a word) errant all over the web. blogs, in a sense, are peer-reviewed publications that require fact-checking and debate by peers.

i happen to enjoy these discussions best. but you’ll quickly find why i’m biased.

Please stop posting comments on this blog.

Too often a perp is pitied, while the rape victim is given a life sentence of tormented memories and a label of “crazy” or “false accuser” with or without a trial.