Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fatherphil · 07-22-2003, 12:27 PM

umoc, if he wanted the services of a prostitute then he should pay up. there is no honor in trying to get off on the cheap (no pun intended)

Derec · 07-22-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
umoc, if he wanted the services of a prostitute then he should pay up.

She did not demand any money up-front, which means that she wasn't a prostitute. If she is lying, then she is not an honest sex-worker, but a black-mailer and extorter of lowest sort.

Quote:

there is no honor in trying to get off on the cheap (no pun intended)

What do you mean "get of cheap"? If they had consensual sex, with no mention of compensation, than he should not pay her. He got sex, she got sex, noone is "getting off cheap".

Why do you think that just because he has a lot of money he should be forced to pay her money for consensual sex?

Again, why should he pay her millions because she wrongly accuses him of rape? Also I do not think she is that hot/talented to warrant a few million for a night with her.
Your prostitute analogy falls flat.

If she had wanted some money to have sex with him beforehand that would be different. Extortion, however has nothing to do with that.

UMoC

fatherphil · 07-26-2003, 11:21 AM

one thing for sure, they both wanted something different. i guess that will be worked out in the courts.

Loren Pechtel · 07-26-2003, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
I don't think we know enough of the facts of the case to determine whether he is innocent or guilty of sexual assault. It really bothers me that the victims private life is being dragged out in order to detract from facts of the case, before it is even tried.
This type of deliberate destruction of the victim is why so many assault and rape victims choose not to come forward. It is irrelevant if she slept with one or one hundred men. A "lose" woman is no more deserving of being assaulted then a "virgin."

It is unfortunate that he didn't come forward earlier and say, "Yes, I had sex with this woman but it was consensual" and instead waited until the physical evidence was substantial enough to determine that sexual intercourse took place.

Brighid

Normally the victim's past shouldn't be an issue. However, when the issue is rape vs false claim of rape then I think parts of it might have some bearing. Her past sexual history is irrelevant, though.

brighid · 07-28-2003, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Normally the victim's past shouldn't be an issue. However, when the issue is rape vs false claim of rape then I think parts of it might have some bearing. Her past sexual history is irrelevant, though.

Yes, IF it is a false claim. Unfortunately the defense will almost always work from the pov of a "false claim" and drag her past through the mud in order to damage her credibility regardless of the truth of the claim. She is damaged no matter what she does.

Brighid

Derec · 07-28-2003, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
Yes, IF it is a false claim. Unfortunately the defense will almost always work from the pov of a "false claim" and drag her past through the mud in order to damage her credibility regardless of the truth of the claim. She is damaged no matter what she does.

Unfortunately the prosecution will always work from the pov of a "real claim" and drag his past through the mud in order to damage his credibility regardless of the truth of the claim. He is damaged no matter what he does.

These DAs are notorious for trying to obtain convictions even if they are not convinced of the guilt because convictions are good for reelection prospects. Especially in such a high profile case. It is truly a make or break situation for the DA.

UMoC

Loren Pechtel · 07-28-2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
Yes, IF it is a false claim. Unfortunately the defense will almost always work from the pov of a "false claim" and drag her past through the mud in order to damage her credibility regardless of the truth of the claim. She is damaged no matter what she does.

Brighid

It's a situation where no outcome is fair to all parties.

fatherphil · 07-28-2003, 12:19 PM

is it me or does kobe seem to be getting different treatment than mike tyson did when he was faced with the same allegations? and is that fair given the fact that what tyson's claims were more innocent than kobe's claims.

Clutch · 07-28-2003, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Also, yes, private life should not be "dragged out". But that should apply equally to accuser and the accused.

Maybe I've been watching the wrong news, but I haven't seen anyone speculating about the number of Bryant's sexual partners, whether he frequently goes to parties hoping to have sex with strangers, and so forth. So I don't see the point of your comment.

Quote:

Also, it should only apply to details of private lives that are not relevant to the case. That can include someone's sexual history.

I think brighid's original point involved the playing out of these details in the media, not a court of law. In the media, and in advance of a trial, sexual history is precisely what ought not be trotted out as relevant -- not even were it done even-handedly, which, again, it isn't.

Amaranth · 07-28-2003, 02:38 PM

What's depressing is the number of people willing to jump on a position defending this girl without having the evidence. What, exactly, happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?" Did the government switch to Napoleanic law while I wasn't looking? Besides that - Anyone else notice that it seems to be verboten to take up any stance but "He must be guilty" when dealing with a rape case? Speaking on behalf of a man charged with rape seems almost tantamount to defending a German at the Nuremberg trials.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2003, 12:27 PM	#21
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	umoc, if he wanted the services of a prostitute then he should pay up. there is no honor in trying to get off on the cheap (no pun intended)

07-26-2003, 11:21 AM	#23
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	one thing for sure, they both wanted something different. i guess that will be worked out in the courts.

07-28-2003, 12:19 PM	#28
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	is it me or does kobe seem to be getting different treatment than mike tyson did when he was faced with the same allegations? and is that fair given the fact that what tyson's claims were more innocent than kobe's claims.

07-28-2003, 02:38 PM	#30
Amaranth Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kansas City Posts: 279	What's depressing is the number of people willing to jump on a position defending this girl without having the evidence. What, exactly, happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?" Did the government switch to Napoleanic law while I wasn't looking? Besides that - Anyone else notice that it seems to be verboten to take up any stance but "He must be guilty" when dealing with a rape case? Speaking on behalf of a man charged with rape seems almost tantamount to defending a German at the Nuremberg trials.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.