Sexual History

In 1999 the law was changed to say that a victim's past sexual history could not be brought up by the defence in a rape trial.

Women's Rights groups saw this as a landmark ruling, but they are now saying the judge in the recent Ched Evans trial has "set us back 30 years" by allowing the victim's past sexual history to be used in the footballers defence.

They say the only difference between the original trial and the one that freed Evans is the fact that in this trial he was allowed to discredit the victim by calling male witnesses to testify she'd previously had sex with them in a similar way.

Basically, they made out she was a slapper.

So this is the question: Is a rape victim's sexual history relevant?

If someone has slept with half the town, does it make her less of a victim or less believable?

Slapper defo asking for it, might as well walk round naked  with an add board.

As I understand the Appeal Court decision they allowed evidence from other people she had had sex with because it was relevant to the question of consent and it does not set a precedent.

A very odd case. She never accused anyone of raping her yet the police and the CPS decided to bring a case against Evans and the other guy. She had sex with both of them and one is acquitted and Evans is originally found guilty. Bizarre.

Natasha Whittam wrote:In 1999 the law was changed to say that a victim's past sexual history could not be brought up by the defence in a rape trial.

Women's Rights groups saw this as a landmark ruling, but they are now saying the judge in the recent Ched Evans trial has "set us back 30 years" by allowing the victim's past sexual history to be used in the footballers defence.

They say the only difference between the original trial and the one that freed Evans is the fact that in this trial he was allowed to discredit the victim by calling male witnesses to testify she'd previously had sex with them in a similar way.

Basically, they made out she was a slapper.

So this is the question: Is a rape victim's sexual history relevant?

If someone has slept with half the town, does it make her less of a victim or less believable?

Previous sexual history shouldn't really have any bearing on a charge of rape but it certainly muddies the waters and puts doubt in the minds of a jury. My own take is that if a woman is absolutely blind drunk then she cannot really be in a position to give her consent. As I see it, the rapist , former rapist, Ched Evans took advantage of her inebriation. Had she been sober I find it unlikely that she would have profferred sticky seconds but the jury thought otherwise.

Lard Lad wrote:Slapper defo asking for it, might as well walk round naked  with an add board.

That's the sort of response I would expect from Donald Trump.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:In 1999 the law was changed to say that a victim's past sexual history could not be brought up by the defence in a rape trial.

Women's Rights groups saw this as a landmark ruling, but they are now saying the judge in the recent Ched Evans trial has "set us back 30 years" by allowing the victim's past sexual history to be used in the footballers defence.

They say the only difference between the original trial and the one that freed Evans is the fact that in this trial he was allowed to discredit the victim by calling male witnesses to testify she'd previously had sex with them in a similar way.

Basically, they made out she was a slapper.

So this is the question: Is a rape victim's sexual history relevant?

If someone has slept with half the town, does it make her less of a victim or less believable?

Previous sexual history shouldn't really have any bearing on a charge of rape but it certainly muddies the waters and puts doubt in the minds of a jury. My own take is that if a woman is absolutely blind drunk then she cannot really be in a position to give her consent. As I see it, the rapist , former rapist, Ched Evans took advantage of her inebriation. Had she been sober I find it unlikely that she would have profferred sticky seconds but the jury thought otherwise.

True but is it not equally the case that if Ched Evans had had a few, was he really in a position to think that consent should be formally sought?  Not the first thing that would have come to mind in that situation I'd imagine. 

The law is predicated the notion on a premise that requires "permission to shag" to be asked for and granted before sex can be deemed legal and yet that is the last thing that is on young lover's minds - and to be honest would probably be a bit of a turn off if you were snogging someone and getting amorous.

As a result the law as it stands, puts all people at risk of prosecution - and is therefore a bad law inasmuch that it doesn't take account of real people in real situations.

The thought that my wife could prosecute me for rape on the basis that I did not seek her verbal or written consent (as opposed to tacit consent) to have sex on even just one occasion is ridiculous - but a possibility as this current law stands.

Lawyers would argue that interpretation of this bad law "is just common sense" - at which point the whole farce becomes subjective and open to witch hunt mentality.

As regards sexual history, perhaps the victim should be made to provide proof that all her previous sexual partners asked for and got permission because I doubt that anyone she has ever had sex with previously was formally given permission - so why should that ridiculous criterion be applied to Evans? I think that sexual history is very relevant if the prosecutions case is based on the idea that permission to have sex wasn't granted - especially when the victim has previously had sex with others without granting permission.

It's a very difficult area as it usually boils down to he said versus she said and with no witnesses how do you know who is telling the truth?

Plus there is the added complication that a man who wakes up sober and regrets sleeping with a woman is hardly in a position to claim they were raped unlike a woman who regrets sleeping with someone and might say that she didn't consent because she was too drunk to do so.