<font color = lightgreen>Both should be named. If you're going to take the plunge and accuse someone of rape, which will severely negatively impact that person's life, then you should also be named.

On the other hand, if you are in a situation where it appears that you have cheated on your wife, you state simply "I didn't cheat on my wife" once and then drop the subject. Continuing to chant your innocence like a mantra and cry on camera looks like someone who is trying to convince everyone that they really are innocent. Besides, why is he in that situation in the first place? Doesn't he have any more sense than to invite women to his hotel room? [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] </font>

Gotta disagree with you. The mental affects of being raped are so traumatizing, that the person should be given the option. I have seen rape victims on TV, who forgo that right. But if you don't want to, you don't have to. I do, however, believe in making the victim's prior history admissable, and presented to defense at the beginning of the trial. I guess that's sort of a balance, but I don't really think it's fair for the victim, some innocent often enough (maybe not in the Kobe case, but whatever) to be paraded around, their dignity destroyed.

True Moose, most legal analysts agree that attempts over the last few decades to change the legal process where rape is concerned (e.g. evidence rules and victim name protection rules) not only addressed the problems women had coming forward as rape victims, but also went TOO FAR, making it such that the accused is hamstrung in defending themselves.

Regarding the one issue I'm familiar with, Evidence, it is a bad situation. The accused gets every sexual relationship he's ever had analyzed, while the victim is protected. The accused is NOT allowed to ask questions regarding the victim's promiscuity or past accusations (false or not) of rape. By statute under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and most states (which adopt laws similar to the FRE), the "victims" past slutiness is "irrelevant." Totally unfair, IMO. As an example, the one girl I know who falsely accused a guy in college of rape was actually an outright ho-bag slut. I have personally seen her in the middle of having sex with multiple partners at once at parties I went to. Yet, in accusing someone, her absolute willingness (and actual pursuit) of having sex with anyone and everyone was inadmissible irrelevant evidence in court. Luckily, everyone on campus knew of this, and of her particular proclivities the night in question, so she dropped her case to avoid social ostracism (and, btw, admitted to her friends it was consensual and she was actually pissed he "blew her off" the next day). If it weren't for the social presures on campus, though, I'm sure she had a good chance to get an upstanding college student with a bright future turned into a jailed "criminal."

Note to all golddigging women on IWF: until the laws change, in the USA this is a great way to fund your life/college for a bit: find a rich guy, screw him, and accuse him of rape. Married guys with high-paying jobs work best, and are especially susceptible to a young girl's charms. Carpe diem, and all that. Happy hunting.

I agree with you, Timber. The defense should be able to rip apart (sorry if it sounds cold) the "victim" on the stand. Nowadays, there are so many false claims (from golddiggers to high school kids whose crush on a teacher was turned down), that to not examine the "victim's" past history is not only an egregious error, it amounts to injustice. However, I don't think this should be dragged all over the media. Sexuality is a private matter: if you accuse someone of rape, you are willing to have yours examined, to a certain degree, by the accusee, officials of the court, and jurors: these people are responsibly obligated to keep this private. It shouldn't however, be available to a guy like me, who has never known this person, when I plop down in front of my couch to watch the news.