Discussion

[Annie Anthrax]

Ah, but surely a court of law should not be concerned with such things! We are here to discuss the facts of this case, not dirty the character of those involved.
Should there be, perhaps a limit on the circumstances in which someone's sexual history can be introduced? Would this not make it fairer for victims? But would it also make it less fair for a defendant?

I appreciate that a skilled prosecutor can turn such questions to their advantage. Something like:
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, yes, this lady does have a history for being very sexually active, but I ask you, given the number of sexual encounters she has had why has she decided to report this one? Because she is lying? No, because she has been raped."

Also, having spoken to a defence lawyer, he did explain that if you didn't attack a witness's credibility you weren't doing your job right.  

[Evan_or_L]

"While true that SOME are active, I don't believe that that this stereotyping should occur. Women aren't promiscuous as they are said. For example, if the women wore a tank top and said hi, with a little wave, then it's considered "Asking for it." Of course, some people fake being a victim but chances are not. It's very frustrating. No one asked to be attacked in body or in speech."  

[Annie Anthrax]

I would have serious concerns about any jury member who considers wearing a tank top and saying hello an invitation to have sex! xd  

[Evan_or_L]

That may be an exageration but unfortunately that is the defense lawyers job..... and it falls through more than a few times.  

[Annie Anthrax]

Just like in And Justice For All! I think it's an Al Pachino film (I think!).
I must admit I do like watching trial movies to see the cut and thrust of legal debate. If I was smart enough I would love to be prosecutor.

So, moving swiftly on, why do so many people abuse their partners in relationships and what can be done to make this problem less severe?  

[Evan_or_L]

Abusers is a subject not unlike rapists and serial killers. The traits of abusers desire: Domination, control, and authority.
some actual reasons are alcohol inhibitions, drug inhibitions, compensations, anger management, insecurity, paranoia, frustration, and displacement.

The problem is going to be treating all these symptoms. Rehab, anger management programs, therapy, stress relief, conditioning training, etc. What the issue standing is finding the problems in the first place. Some abuse is easy to detect, some people aren't as easily seen. Some people stick up for their abusers and lie (Back to that compensation and inadequacy thing, people often make others down to raise themselves up).  

[Annie Anthrax]

Discussion is no fun when everyone agrees! :p
But yes, you are quite correct. Do we need to teach our children about domestic abuse in schools? You know, get them when they are young about what constitutes a healthy relationship.

It's such a pain when people don't press charges. The person is so clearly bad for them, but they are paralysed by... Well... Many things really.
I've done a day or two in domestic abuse court and it's really very sad stuff. I've never seen people so emotionally charged! I'd hate to think about everything that happened to them before the rude awakening that made them decide to report it.

I did another point about something else but I've forgotten what it was. So.. Er.. Yeah. Crime! ninja  

[Evan_or_L]

I'm not sure if school will really teach people much. How many drug, sex, and violence seminars do we have that are obviously not working? For people to report problems is the sure fire key. It must happen at least once, but it will end if it is brought into attention soon enough. There are basically four types of abuse.

-infantile
-child
-teen
-adult (contains elderly)

We could probably do things for the second two. as for the first two, the parents would have to step in (That's a dilema...) The second two I feel can be delt with. Empower the victims. Start with media, move to role models, and add a level of market with popular connotations. That, could stop the abuse. People only have abuse if the victim takes it and the aggressor dishes it out too difficult to handle. If the target group is women, then empower women (only reason I use that is because the availability huristic tells me that that's most common. It could be wrong but still...). The target group could fight back. I don't think ending it is possible, but it could be reduced. Now in fighting back, violence escalates violence. There has to be a new type of psychological defense system. It also helps to have a taser. But therapy is the only way to take the aggressor down a notch. If there is any kind of school seminar it would be for choosing the right people to date but, you know.... teenagers and their freedom.  

[Annie Anthrax]

So, what do people think of this 'controversial' new immigration law in California?  

[Evan_or_L]

which law specifically? I know there was one in arizona.  

[Annie Anthrax]

The one where the police will have the power to stop anyone and make them show evidence of their immigration status.

Some feel it is a form institutional racism, given how it's almost certain people that look like they have come from South and Central America will be targeted the most.

Just as long as it doesn't lead to one of those tricksy race riots!  

[Evan_or_L]

I don't think it's going to work well. This has happened in the past already ALOT. Racial profiling gets nothing accomplished. It just stereotypes.  

[Annie Anthrax]

But they're taking our jobs and stealing our women! Dey took ur jerbz! whee
Allegedly anyway. We have issues with immigration in the UK, but not in the same way as the USA.  

[Evan_or_L]

Ahhhh.., so you're in the UK. Well, I've lived in Arizona for eight years. Let me say it's only a sterotype in our media. Some food for thought. Really.... What jobs are they taking? Fruit picking, construction, and physical labor, the jobs that nobody wants. As for taking women? That is a fallacy as well. They cross the border mainly to support their families. Our economy though weakened is nothing compared to shattered mexico. Most of them are married anyway.

I'm not sure that those arguments are valid. What about the legal aliens?  

[Annie Anthrax]

But dey took ur jeorbz! scream Aah, South Park. biggrin Anyway, so you feel that it isn't necessary at all? Would you go so far as to say it was racist? Or just.. I dunno... A heavy handed solution to a problem?