Litigating Sex Crimes in the United States: Has the Last Decade Made Any Difference?

Myrna S. Raeder
{"title":"Litigating Sex Crimes in the United States: Has the Last Decade Made Any Difference?","authors":"Myrna S. Raeder","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This comprehensive article reviews the history of advocacy on behalf of adult and child female victims of rape and other sexual assaults, focusing on both long term and short term trends. The first section provides statistical information about victimizations, rape reporting and prosecutions over the last 15 years. The second section explores the variety of issues that arise in the context of rape shields, including the extent of admission of evidence of prostitution and promiscuity, and urges that judges be required to find preliminary facts by a clear and convincing evidence standard before admitting any evidence of the complainant's sexual life that the defense claims is not barred by a rape shield. In addition, a reverse balancing test should also be required prohibiting such evidence of a sexual nature unless its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the complainant or unfair prejudice to any party. The author argues that these restrictions do not violate the Confrontation Clause.The next major section discusses the admission of the defendant's prior acts to prove propensity and lustful disposition. The author does not support the general admission of propensity evidence, but favors a flexible approach to the admission of Rule 404(b), particularly in child abuse cases, which is currently the prevalent approach. To the extent that propensity evidence is generally permitted, such as under the Federal Rules and in California, the author would also subject its admission to a clear and convincing evidence standard. Other topics addressed include rape counselor privileges; fresh complaint; DNA database issues, Sexual Abuse Response Teams and the use of forensic nurses.The article also explores how the rights of crime victims affect trials of sex crimes, and urges that more attention be given to providing legal assistance to child victims of sexual assaults. The article concludes by looking at evidentiary issues in child abuse cases, such as competency, remote testimony, expert testimony, and discusses the child friendly courtroom in light of Crawford's ban on testimonial statements in the absence of a declarant who has been subjected to cross examination.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Commentary on Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This comprehensive article reviews the history of advocacy on behalf of adult and child female victims of rape and other sexual assaults, focusing on both long term and short term trends. The first section provides statistical information about victimizations, rape reporting and prosecutions over the last 15 years. The second section explores the variety of issues that arise in the context of rape shields, including the extent of admission of evidence of prostitution and promiscuity, and urges that judges be required to find preliminary facts by a clear and convincing evidence standard before admitting any evidence of the complainant's sexual life that the defense claims is not barred by a rape shield. In addition, a reverse balancing test should also be required prohibiting such evidence of a sexual nature unless its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the complainant or unfair prejudice to any party. The author argues that these restrictions do not violate the Confrontation Clause.The next major section discusses the admission of the defendant's prior acts to prove propensity and lustful disposition. The author does not support the general admission of propensity evidence, but favors a flexible approach to the admission of Rule 404(b), particularly in child abuse cases, which is currently the prevalent approach. To the extent that propensity evidence is generally permitted, such as under the Federal Rules and in California, the author would also subject its admission to a clear and convincing evidence standard. Other topics addressed include rape counselor privileges; fresh complaint; DNA database issues, Sexual Abuse Response Teams and the use of forensic nurses.The article also explores how the rights of crime victims affect trials of sex crimes, and urges that more attention be given to providing legal assistance to child victims of sexual assaults. The article concludes by looking at evidentiary issues in child abuse cases, such as competency, remote testimony, expert testimony, and discusses the child friendly courtroom in light of Crawford's ban on testimonial statements in the absence of a declarant who has been subjected to cross examination.
美国的性犯罪诉讼:过去十年有什么不同吗?
这篇全面的文章回顾了为强奸和其他性侵犯的成年和儿童女性受害者辩护的历史,重点关注长期和短期趋势。第一部分提供了关于过去15年来受害者、强奸报告和起诉的统计资料。第二部分探讨了在强奸盾牌的背景下出现的各种问题,包括承认卖淫和滥交证据的程度,并敦促法官在承认辩方声称没有被强奸盾牌阻止的申诉人性生活的任何证据之前,必须以明确和令人信服的证据标准找到初步事实。此外,还应规定一项反向平衡检验,禁止这种性方面的证据,除非其证明价值大大超过对申诉人造成伤害或对任何一方造成不公平损害的危险。作者认为这些限制并不违反对抗条款。下一个主要部分讨论承认被告先前的行为来证明倾向和好色倾向。发件人不支持普遍承认倾向证据,但赞成对承认规则404(b)采取灵活的办法,特别是在虐待儿童案件中,这是目前普遍采用的办法。在一般允许倾向性证据的情况下,例如根据《联邦规则》和在加州,发件人也将其纳入明确和令人信服的证据标准。其他讨论的主题包括强奸顾问特权;新鲜的投诉;DNA数据库问题,性虐待反应小组和法医护士的使用。文章还探讨了犯罪受害者的权利如何影响性犯罪的审判,并敦促更多地关注为性侵犯的儿童受害者提供法律援助。文章最后探讨了虐待儿童案件中的证据问题,如能力、远程证词、专家证词,并根据克劳福德禁止在没有接受交叉询问的声明人的情况下提供证词的规定,讨论了对儿童友好的法庭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信