I apologize if that wasn’t your goal, but we’ve seen that particular sidetrack just too often.

If you’d like to discuss circumcision, though, feel free to do so at the post I linked to in my last paragraph.

—Myca

And what Sailorman said: rules of evidence shielding criminal sexual conduct of a defendant fall under the heading of ‘prior bad acts’.

Then you know that claiming there are rules of evidence that bar “all sexual history of a witness, period” is both sloppy and false. For a lawyer to be so vague and to misstate the law in such a way suggests that you are not just ill-informed.

To recap, your claim is: “most (if not all?) states have laws that make all sexual history of a witness inadmissible, period.” Please point me to any state that has an absolute bar to the admissibility of a witness’s sexual history.

How would this case be viewed differently if the mother had done the piercing herself? Is the piercer less culpable since she was merely the agent of the mother? Is the mother less culpable because she didn’t do the piercing herself?

Finally, if something similar happened to a young boy, could there be any legal recourse whatsoever?

“Pro-feminist” has a specific meaning within feminist discourse that you don’t seem to be aware of. If you can’t say “I consider myself a feminist” or “I would consider myself a feminist, except I don’t think men can be feminists, so instead I consider myself pro-feminist,” then you shouldn’t be posting in any of the “feminists and pro-feminists only” threads. Sorry for the confusion.

I cannot offer a citation because I cannot give any more details than generalities about the case because I have to keep it confidential. To answer someone else, I am a lawyer, and this is a case I have directly worked with, so that’s how I know it is true. And this case is the reason I first posted in this thread - the case posted about for this thread reminded me of this case of mine (which is disturbing on many levels) for obvious reasons.

In my case, the judge, I think, made a mistake, but he was following the plain language of the statute, which leaves no room for an exception like the one in my case. So the only escape clause would be a constitutional argument. It remains to be seen what will utlimately happen with that.

And I am sorry if I said anything inappropriate regarding my feelings about what mythago said, but at the very least, I think mythago owes me an apology for the rather offensive things said - I should not have let my offense get the better of me, and I am sorry about that, but it was still very wrong and disgusting equating me with those rather profane things, based on nothing I said, but instead based on some form of sick projection.

Let me be very clear. I agree with the idea behind rape shield statutes, I just wish they had been implemented better. In an ideal world, they would not be needed at all because the general rule keeping out irrelevant evidence would be enough to keep out irrelevant sexual history, but unfortunately, it did not work out that way, so something more was needed.

Oh, and Ari, this was a complaining witness.

Now, in closing, if you think that my unequivical support of equal rights for women does not sufficiently make me pro-feminist enough to post here or in any similar thread, then I will not do so ever again.

Rape shield laws, generally speaking, shield the ACCUSER’S history, and prevent it being used to attack the accuser.

In some cases, this keeps out evidence of other crimes that are very relevant - for instance, I’ve seen it keep out the fact that a witness was caught raping a 3-year old, something in the context of the case was rather relevant because it gave that witness a reason to lie when testifying against another defendant (to avoid and deflect blame for that act).

This is an extraordinary enough claim so that I’d like to see it backed up with a citation to a news story. If you have a citation describing the specific case you’re talking about, feel free to post it in this thread.

Beyond that, however, I’ll remind you that the checkbox at the bottom of the page is there for a reason. Since you’ve written things like “I want to say that I’m not a feminist,” you should not be posting in this thread, or in any thread marked feminists-only.

So unless you have a citation to offer me — and I strongly suspect you don’t — please do not put any further comments on to this thread. Thank you.

No, you really didn’t, and you can avoid doing it in the future.

“In some cases, this keeps out evidence of other crimes that are very relevant - for instance, I’ve seen it”

Are you a lawyer?

In some cases, this keeps out evidence of other crimes that are very relevant - for instance, I’ve seen it keep out the fact that a witness was caught raping a 3-year old, something in the context of the case was rather relevant because it gave that witness a reason to lie when testifying against another defendant (to avoid and deflect blame for that act)

I’d be interested to hear more about that example — can you point us to a citation? That sounds more like the usual common-law rule about not bringing up irrelevant prior convictions to besmirch the defendant than a rape-shield law.

I’m also puzzled, because the National Association of DA’s table I linked to above shows all state rape laws refer to either “the complaining witness’s” or “the victim’s” prior activity. None would shield a defendant. And I suspect evidence of a prior felony conviction suggesting bad character would be exempt in every state.

In some cases, this keeps out evidence of other crimes that are very relevant - for instance, I’ve seen it keep out the fact that a witness was caught raping a 3-year old, something in the context of the case was rather relevant because it gave that witness a reason to lie when testifying against another defendant (to avoid and deflect blame for that act). Somehow, I don’t think the laws were enacted with the intent to protect witnesses who rape toddlers. In fact, that is a rather absurd result. That is my problem with those laws - and I think they are symptomatic of the way they were passed. All of the rules of evidence are set by the courts over a long deliberative process, taking into account how the law has developed over the years. But the rape-shield laws were enacted differently - it was a political hot potato that was rammed into the rules of evidence by the legislature without any of the usual procedures - and so now while they can and do work as intended, they also have a bunch of unintended, sometimes rather horrible, side-effects, like the one I mentioned above.

a guess about why the rapes might have been excluded (not necessarily correctly) - as part of legislation enacted to protect rape complainants, most (if not all?) states have laws that make all sexual history of a witness inadmissible, period.

As it happens, there’s a nice table online of what various state rape laws say. It sounds like in Florida, this would have been admissable, since only “consensual” behavior is inadmissable.

mythago, I didn’t see the quoted comment as foreshadowing a screed. I’m new here, is that an unusually controversial subject here? I’ve never actually heard anybody complain about rape shield laws– and I tend to run in circles farther to the right than many here.

No, they don’t. It’s pretty pathetic that your’e trying to hijack this thread into a screed against rape-shield laws.

Excuse me while I vomit. Profusely.

I’m not often an advocate for blaming mothers for everything and letting male perpetrators off the hook… and I DO sincerely hope the boyfriend stands trial and is put away, but I gotta say, I personally feel like what the mother did in this case was FAR worse than the original perpetration by the boyfriend. I can’t even begin to fathom the kind of long term emotional damage she has caused that poor girl. HOW do you figure out how to be whole when your mother BLAMES you for your assualt by her boyfriend, and punishes you for it in such harsh, violent ways.

I just am so sick. I’m going to go hug and kiss my baby girl now.

I really don’t get it. Mostly: 1) it seems clearly rape to me. But 2) Even if you’re crazy enough to think it’s consensual, wouldn’t the thing to do to get rid of the boyfriend? And 3) Even if you’re crazy enough to think it’s consensual AND to want to keep the boyfriend.. oh hell, I can’t imagine this one It. Is. REALLY. Fucked. Up.

Oh, absolutely, she should be in jail for allowing it. However, it’s hard to prove the knowledge and intent. And I’m not sure that that was the crime the jury was returning a verdict on. It sounded from the press reports like only the piercing was in question, and there might be reasonable doubt about the precise intention the mother had.

The most I can think of is (brace yourself) that the jury bought into the consent thing. Which wouldn’t surprise me.

Let me put on my handy “hat of insanity” for a moment and pretend to be a juror: we’ve got little problem that 11 or 12 year olds can have sexual desires, right? We may not like it, but 12-year olds do it. And we as parents need to try to stop it for their own good, right?
(Both of those views in their “sane” existences are visible in this thread: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/19/children-fucking-children)

OK, “hat of insanity” off.

I really don’t get it. Mostly: 1) it seems clearly rape to me. But 2) Even if you’re crazy enough to think it’s consensual, wouldn’t the thing to do to get rid of the boyfriend? And 3) Even if you’re crazy enough to think it’s consensual AND to want to keep the boyfriend.. oh hell, I can’t imagine this one It. Is. REALLY. Fucked. Up.

The piercer, as I understand, was convicted because she had no legal right to piece– she was unlicensed.

Nope.

She was charged with aggravated child abuse and, in return for her cooperation, plea bargained down to both child abuse and a charge of operating a body piercing service without a license.

Link.

As to why the jury wasn’t presented evidence of the abuse — It would be hard to prove the mother knew about the rape, so you couldn’t get her for covering it up. And otherwise, it isn’t clear how it’s relevant to the mother’s guilt or innocence. Courts don’t like to show juries irrelevant evidence; the worry is that the jury would be “biased” by it.

Nope.

The jury was presented with evidence of the rape, and the evidence seems to indicate that the mother had knowledge of the rape prior to shaving her daughter’s head and piercing her genitals . . . which the daughter says was nonconsensual.

Link.

—Myca