Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Bryantiproductive
Last week, Kobe Bryant's attorney Pamela Mackey argued that Bryant's alleged rape victim may have received her "vaginal tearing" as a result of "having sex with three men in three days." This seemed perilously close to violating the rape shield law, which states that a woman's sexual history is inadmissable as evidence, for it might improperly influence a jury's opinion of the victim; legally, rape must be equally condemned whether it's against a virginal choir girl or a promiscuous troubled teen, for obvious reasons. But the defense seems to have successfully argued that such statements were only made to address the "vaginal tearing" question, using a loophole in the shield provision that does allow evidence when specific injuries may have come from someone else. And, indeed, they apparently even have proof that at least one other person's "substances" were present in the woman's underwear.
What no one seems to be talking about is the fact that by portraying this woman, essentially, as a "slut," Kobe's defense team is damaging a key argument in their case. It is true that the "tearing" of the alleged victim could very well have occurred during consensual sex, not just from rape. However, when it's from consensual activity, it's most often when a woman hasn't had sexual relations in some time, and would be much less common on someone who had just had sex "with three men in three days." If the two most common causes of this injury are non-consensual sex, or consensual sex after a long period of no sex, and the defense team eliminates this latter cause, then the former cause gains credibility. Therefore, if the woman is in fact promiscuous, the defense can not as convincingly claim the "vaginal tearing" was a result of consensual activity. Quick addendum on this -- I'm referring to the doctor's theories on this specific case, and this specific woman, not just tearing in general, which can occur from a wide variety of sexual and even non-sexual activities.
Either the defense team does not realize this little paradox, or, more likely, they feel that making the alleged victim out to be "loose" damages her reputation enough to outweigh that, medically, it'd be better for their case if she was, er, "tight." Kobe's hope here is that people will think "oh, well, that girl's a troubled slut who's been having sex with different guys all week, and he's this gorgeous popular basketball star who could have anyone he wanted, so it must have been consensual, which makes her a liar, too." But this is why we have rape shield laws, to prevent juries from being swayed by such thoughts. Why isn't a person's prior sexual promiscuity relevant? Well, imagine if a guy breaks into a woman's house to steal her stereo, and is caught. Do you think it would be relevant if the defense proved that the woman had had several invited visitors into her house in the past week? "But ladies and gentleman of the jury, she lets people into her house all the time. Why should we think this guy wasn't invited in, too? I mean, she's even had parties for God's sake. She's practically a socialite!" See what I mean?
Bottom line, this is a sleazy tactic on the part of the defense, and I hope the prosecution realizes how to use the "vaginal tearing" inconsistency to their advantage.
(Incidentally, I have to apologize for using the "vaginal tearing" phrase over and over, the way everyone else in the media has -- a google search for "kobe vaginal tearing" finds 600 documents already. All these poor kids around the country, unable to avoid the nonstop news coverage. "Daddy, what's vaginal tearing?" I suppose it's still better than during the Clinton impeachment trial. "Daddy, what's a natural humidor?" But not by much.)
Last week, Kobe Bryant's attorney Pamela Mackey argued that Bryant's alleged rape victim may have received her "vaginal tearing" as a result of "having sex with three men in three days." This seemed perilously close to violating the rape shield law, which states that a woman's sexual history is inadmissable as evidence, for it might improperly influence a jury's opinion of the victim; legally, rape must be equally condemned whether it's against a virginal choir girl or a promiscuous troubled teen, for obvious reasons. But the defense seems to have successfully argued that such statements were only made to address the "vaginal tearing" question, using a loophole in the shield provision that does allow evidence when specific injuries may have come from someone else. And, indeed, they apparently even have proof that at least one other person's "substances" were present in the woman's underwear.
What no one seems to be talking about is the fact that by portraying this woman, essentially, as a "slut," Kobe's defense team is damaging a key argument in their case. It is true that the "tearing" of the alleged victim could very well have occurred during consensual sex, not just from rape. However, when it's from consensual activity, it's most often when a woman hasn't had sexual relations in some time, and would be much less common on someone who had just had sex "with three men in three days." If the two most common causes of this injury are non-consensual sex, or consensual sex after a long period of no sex, and the defense team eliminates this latter cause, then the former cause gains credibility. Therefore, if the woman is in fact promiscuous, the defense can not as convincingly claim the "vaginal tearing" was a result of consensual activity. Quick addendum on this -- I'm referring to the doctor's theories on this specific case, and this specific woman, not just tearing in general, which can occur from a wide variety of sexual and even non-sexual activities.
Either the defense team does not realize this little paradox, or, more likely, they feel that making the alleged victim out to be "loose" damages her reputation enough to outweigh that, medically, it'd be better for their case if she was, er, "tight." Kobe's hope here is that people will think "oh, well, that girl's a troubled slut who's been having sex with different guys all week, and he's this gorgeous popular basketball star who could have anyone he wanted, so it must have been consensual, which makes her a liar, too." But this is why we have rape shield laws, to prevent juries from being swayed by such thoughts. Why isn't a person's prior sexual promiscuity relevant? Well, imagine if a guy breaks into a woman's house to steal her stereo, and is caught. Do you think it would be relevant if the defense proved that the woman had had several invited visitors into her house in the past week? "But ladies and gentleman of the jury, she lets people into her house all the time. Why should we think this guy wasn't invited in, too? I mean, she's even had parties for God's sake. She's practically a socialite!" See what I mean?
Bottom line, this is a sleazy tactic on the part of the defense, and I hope the prosecution realizes how to use the "vaginal tearing" inconsistency to their advantage.
(Incidentally, I have to apologize for using the "vaginal tearing" phrase over and over, the way everyone else in the media has -- a google search for "kobe vaginal tearing" finds 600 documents already. All these poor kids around the country, unable to avoid the nonstop news coverage. "Daddy, what's vaginal tearing?" I suppose it's still better than during the Clinton impeachment trial. "Daddy, what's a natural humidor?" But not by much.)
