Results 1 to 3 of 3
Strauss-Kahn case...victim credibility under attack
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07...html?hpt=hp_t1
Apparantly the victim blaming has now begun in earnest....well...not exactly blaming. But her background is now questioned.
The victim admitted that she lied about being the victim of a gangrape to gain admittance into the US and stated she was taking care of somebody in order to gain more benefits. This means her credibility is now questioned.
In the light of irrefutable DNA evidence this may very well mean that the prosecution might drop the case because there will be severe doubts by the jury as to the credibility of the victim....making the case for the defence that the sexual encounter might just as well have been consentual
Mans a disgrace and a vile sexist ...and this is a slur campaign aimed at the victim
Lied der Internationalen Brigaden'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJD0e...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-He0...eature=related
'extreme' is relative to some idea of a 'neutral center', which is almost always the dominant ideology or status quo. by placing yourself in this imaginary 'center' you are simply supporting the established order, and making yourself irrelevant as a human being. - Zenga Zenga
I'll preface this by saying: (a) that I agree this is an outrage, particularly in light of the physical evidence, and (b) that what I'm about to discuss is a side-issue that I hope we don't get too caught up in for too long.
Anyway...
Generally speaking, is it really blaming the victim to point out that a hypothetical victim lied about a similar crime before? (Let's assume it's true that this hypothetical victim had lied about a previous alleged rape - I don't know if the real victim did or did not).
It disgusts me when people bring up arguments like "the victim has lots of sex!", "the victim's a hooker!", "the victim was dressed provocatively," "the victim was drunk," etcetera and so forth. However, I can see how "the victim has lied about being the victim of this type of crime before" could be considered qualitatively different from the previous "arguments"; after all, it's actually pertinent to the case, because it speaks to victim credibility to an extent that skirt length - or lying about unrelated matters - simply cannot.
This is a moot point in this specific case, due to the physical evidence, but I ask because I'm curious about this as a generalized hypothetical on which I cannot make up my mind one way or the other.
