Not to dwell on the Michael Jackson question too much, but this trial exhibited a pattern very similar to many trials where a sexual invasion of some sort is alleged to have taken place. The strategy of the defence invariably seems to be the personal demolition of the individual alleging the crime took place.
In the Jackson case, the defense was fairly gentle; most of their ire was reserved for the alleged victim's mother. The celebrity trial I can't help but remember was actually the Kobe Bryant trial - despite rape shield laws designed to protect putting the alleged victim on trial and subjecting them to a second violation, during that trial I formed a definite impression such laws are ineffective. As I read each day about the progress of that case, I felt I could only characterize the Bryant defense strategy as being fairly blatantly, "she's a slut!"
I'm at a loss to suggest something better, however. In an adversarial justice system, how does a defendant defend himself, since the crime is almost exclusively carried out in private? The statistics on sexual assualt are frightening - it is probably the least prosecuted serious crime there is, because of the shame, stigma, and revictimization. But the presumption of innocence does not seem to lead to any other road...
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Sex accusations, accusers, defendants
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I understand the flaw you're talking about, but at the same time, I think we definitely should be skeptical of people's motives, and the possible profits they have from accusations. Although it's likely that someone who has a history of lying will tell a truth once in a while, it's more likely that he or she won't.
Post a Comment