Does the 'Rape Shield Law" deter justice?

I've been reading about sexual crimes online and some of the most notorious ones, and I've stumbled upon the case of Oliver Jovanovic, a doctoral candidate in molecular biology at Columbia University, who was accused and then charged from what I've read for soliciting a university student, Jamie Rzucek, coercing her into sex, and then enacting a torture fantasy for a period of 20 hours without her permission.

During the trial, with the implementation of the Rape Shield Law, the prosecutor managed to withhold from the jury emails and records of Jamie Rzucek's interaction with the accused, in short, the jury was allowed to know nothing about the background and character of the complaining witness' interest in sado-masochism and her gloating of participation and frequenting of such clubs, which would have casted doubt on the validity of her claims if brought to light. In reality, she was heavily involved in sado-masochism and frequented New York's well known sado-masochism clubs including "The Vault" and "Hell's Fire".

In the end the New York Supreme Court dropped all charges against him, but the trial was a lengthy and expensive process, especially for the defendant and his family. The conviction was overturned in a 4-1 vote after Jovanovic had spent 20 months in prison, where his cell was next to the cell of the "Son of Sam". The end result was that a case which should never have been brought from day one took five years of a man's life and cost $500,000 to defend.

So my question is this.....does the possibility of prosecutors to use the Rape Shield Law in sex crime cases such as these ensure sensitivity for the victim or does this stand in the way of justice for those that may be wrongfully accused?

Isn't it possible that its existence stands in the way of justice when the same hypothetical woman, more than once, after for example a drunken night of partying yells rape? (and all the previous times are kept under wraps because of it)

What do you think are the pros and cons of such a law?

I think just because someone might have been raped doesn't they can't change all procedures to find the truth...sure they might be in an emotionally terrible state...but they might be just as well be lying and putting innocent people in danger...

[edit] Holy ****..I did it again.

The problem with juries is that they don't have the objectivity of a judge. There needs to be a happy medium found in such matters.

it is a hard thing to say
in this case no matter how much the person was into whatever they were into and no matter their interaction or what they say claimed t have done no is no
no one should be forcded
but they should not have led the other person on if they couldn't go through with such acts.both parties were punished in a way.
i think all of the facts should be brought out in such a serious case, in any case.
the justice system is not perfect and will never be.
some accused and guilty may go free and as sad as it is it is important to and for the innocent to have all they can backing them up.

Originally posted by silver_tears

Isn't it possible that its existence stands in the way of justice when the same hypothetical woman, more than once, after for example a drunken night of partying yells rape? (and all the previous times are kept under wraps because of it)

What do you think are the pros and cons of such a law? [/B]

Yes, i think it would definately stand in the way of complete justice. This is kinda ironic becuase i can remember my parents actually had a conversation about that case. Those clubs are very prevalent in New York and Los Angeles.

Originally posted by natashia
it is a hard thing to say
in this case no matter how much the person was into whatever they were into and no matter their interaction or what they say claimed t have done no is no
no one should be forcded
but they should not have led the other person on if they couldn't go through with such acts.both parties were punished in a way.
i think all of the facts should be brought out in such a serious case, in any case.
the justice system is not perfect and will never be.
some accused and guilty may go free and as sad as it is it is important to and for the innocent to have all they can backing them up.

Yes but that's just it. We can never be sure if he ever forced her into anything seeing as she had such a passion for that type of thing. We can never be sure if she ever had said to stop.But the fact remains, because of the prosecutor using the rape shield law to conceal her character and personality an innocent man according to the courts now lost some of his life.

So my question is does it do what is intended, protect the innocent victims, or is it simply backup for a case that has little chance to survive without it?

I don't doubt that as a skeptical society, had the emails and conversations been introduced sooner, the case would have been thrown out almost instantly.

Originally posted by silver_tears
So my question is this.....does the possibility of prosecutors to use the Rape Shield Law in sex crime cases such as these ensure sensitivity for the victim or does this stand in the way of justice for those that may be wrongfully accused?

Isn't it possible that its existence stands in the way of justice when the same hypothetical woman, more than once, after for example a drunken night of partying yells rape? (and all the previous times are kept under wraps because of it)

What do you think are the pros and cons of such a law?

In this particular case, the woman was obvoiusly into it (S&M), so I don't see anything wrong with using that against her. The little pendeja just wanted some money.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In this particular case, the woman was obvoiusly into it (S&M), so I don't see anything wrong with using that against her. The little pendeja just wanted some money.

She might still have been raped in this case.

Originally posted by Penelope
This is kinda ironic becuase i can remember my parents actually had a conversation about that case.

In my eyes this severely lacks irony

Mmmm, S&M. Secksy.

I would have something more relevant to say, but it's already been said. The fact that some girls can call 'rape' when it really isn't just pisses me off.

Originally posted by Bardock42
She might still have been raped in this case.

In my eyes this severely lacks irony

you are severely blind in my opinion

Originally posted by dr. pookie
you are severely blind in my opinion

How so?

Originally posted by dr. pookie
you are severely blind in my opinion

If you mean because she clearly wasn't raped, then that's a perfect example of why such details aren't released to the jury.

Originally posted by silver_tears
I've been reading about sexual crimes online and some of the most notorious ones, and I've stumbled upon the case of Oliver Jovanovic, a doctoral candidate in molecular biology at Columbia University, who was accused and then charged from what I've read for soliciting a university student, Jamie Rzucek, coercing her into sex, and then enacting a torture fantasy for a period of 20 hours without her permission.

During the trial, with the implementation of the Rape Shield Law, the prosecutor managed to withhold from the jury emails and records of Jamie Rzucek's interaction with the accused, in short, the jury was allowed to know nothing about the background and character of the complaining witness' interest in sado-masochism and her gloating of participation and frequenting of such clubs, which would have casted doubt on the validity of her claims if brought to light. In reality, she was heavily involved in sado-masochism and frequented New York's well known sado-masochism clubs including "The Vault" and "Hell's Fire".

In the end the New York Supreme Court dropped all charges against him, but the trial was a lengthy and expensive process, especially for the defendant and his family. The conviction was overturned in a 4-1 vote after Jovanovic had spent 20 months in prison, where his cell was next to the cell of the "Son of Sam". The end result was that a case which should never have been brought from day one took five years of a man's life and cost $500,000 to defend.

So my question is this.....does the possibility of prosecutors to use the Rape Shield Law in sex crime cases such as these ensure sensitivity for the victim or does this stand in the way of justice for those that may be wrongfully accused?

Isn't it possible that its existence stands in the way of justice when the same hypothetical woman, more than once, after for example a drunken night of partying yells rape? (and all the previous times are kept under wraps because of it)

What do you think are the pros and cons of such a law?

The reason such law was introduced in the first place, was the way rape victims were dealt with in the past.

This is one case, which evidently has gone wrong, but as Bardock said, she could have been into S&M, but that doesn't mean she couldn't have been raped.

Basically, before the law, the way rape victims were treated was more in the manner of the offender.
Their life, the way they lead their life and what they did, their economic background, always paid a huge part.

For example, it was never accepted that woman can invite a man over to her house, then not want to engage into sex. Such act was considered her fault.

Second, women who were involved in prostitution, and been raped would never win the case.

Rape Sheld Law was put in place, because Rape was the only crime where the victims background was brought into the trial.

No other crime, in the court of law, apart from rape, admitted looking into past of a victim.

Rape Shield Law, was put in place to stop the scrutinising of women when it came to rape.

Only 5% of raped women report the incident, and only about 1% of those make it to court.

Of course this is not without its flaws - creating a system which is without flaws is extreamly difficult.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The reason such law was introduced in the first place, was the way rape victims were dealt with in the past.

This is one case, which evidently has gone wrong, but as Bardock said, she could have been into S&M, but that doesn't mean she couldn't have been raped.

Basically, before the law, the way rape victims were treated was more in the manner of the offender.
Their life, the way they lead their life and what they did, their economic background, always paid a huge part.

For example, it was never accepted that woman can invite a man over to her house, then not want to engage into sex. Such act was considered her fault.

Second, women who were involved in prostitution, and been raped would never win the case.

Rape Sheld Law was put in place, because Rape was the only crime where the victims background was brought into the trial.

No other crime, in the court of law, apart from rape, admitted looking into past of a victim.

Rape Shield Law, was put in place to stop the scrutinising of women when it came to rape.

Only 5% of raped women report the incident, and only about 1% of those make it to court.

Of course this is not without its flaws - creating a system which is without flaws is extreamly difficult.

But rape is a different sort of crime than others. The difference in the act as a crime, and as a means of producing a child, or obtaining pleasure, lies within giving consent. Short of enforcing written consent, it's hard to go much further than a she-said, he-said case.

Then the only way to go about it would be to find out who is telling the truth. Lie detectors are not consistent enough for this.

As it is now, I'm quite sure that the accuser has the advantage here, and unlike many of the other crimes, the defendant is often guilty before found innocent.

No, I'm not defending rapists, I'm just saying that maybe the rape shield law may not provide equality.