NCJ Number
84564
Date Published
Unknown
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses the rape victim's experience in the criminal justice system and the ways in which recent rape law reforms affect the adjudication of sexual assault cases and the victim's treatment in court.
Abstract
It emphasizes the findings of a jury simulation research program. Interviews with rape victims have revealed that the main reason for not pressing charges in rape cases is the victim's desire to avoid the ordeal of courtroom testimony. To deal with this situation, 40 States have enacted laws limiting the admissibility of the victim's prior sexual history with persons other than the defendant. The Federal Rules of Evidence have also been amended on this point. A large-scale jury simulation experiment using subjects who had served on juries as well as those who had not produced results strongly supporting the reformist contention that the rape victim is on trial along with the accused. Jurors were reluctant to convict the defendant when any testimony about prior sexual history was introduced in support of a consent defense. Only the most restrictive rape shield statute offered protection to the victim. Findings raise the issue of the need to balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the accused. Critics of the more extreme reform statutes have argued that a strict exclusion of the victim's prior sexual history is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and that the defendant should be able to present evidence about the victim's character. Minnesota's moderate statute leaves the decision to the trial judge. State courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the statutes. Further research and consideration of tightening the current Minnesota law are recommended. Two references are listed.