GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > GLO Specific Forums > Delta > Delta Sigma Theta

» GC Stats
Members: 331,805
Threads: 115,722
Posts: 2,207,890
Welcome to our newest member, zaaylajunioro43
» Online Users: 536
2 members and 534 guests
zaalexexaxd8961
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #36  
Old 09-19-2004, 09:32 PM
jojapeach jojapeach is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the sleeper cab of my tractor trailer all over the 48
Posts: 2,723
Send a message via Yahoo to jojapeach
Re: Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Exquisite5
This is a little off topic, but this post made me think of this.

As many over on AKA Avenue know I have just wrapped up my first year at Howard Law School (learning like Thurgood ). One of my classes this semester was criminal law where one of the crimes we studied was rape.

I was surprised to learn that in MANY jurisdictions when the judge gives a rape charge to the jury he is still required to provide a Lord Hale Instruction. A Lord Hale Instruction is a direction to the jury that many females lie about rape and that rape charges should be decided with caution and that the jury should be very careful in deciding which prosecution witnesses it finds credible. Basically, the judge tells the jury that rape is a big deal, judge carefully and that women lie.

This was very common at common law, and there is a movement towards getting rid of this instruction and many jurisdictions have. Yet, many retain it.

What do you think about this? In light of the Merlin Santana death, do you think its justified?

It is only an instruction, the jury can still decide how they want to and in jurisdictions that give it, its given in EVERY rape case, not just when the judge thinks the victim is lying.
No one ever answered the question, so I'm bumping this up.

I think the Lord Hale Instruction should remain on the books for all times. It's an unfortunate reality, but there are women who lie about such a heinous crime and violation. It seems necessary to give a "disclaimer" because we all know that many people see the accused rapist as proven guilty until innocent (look at Kobe and his lost endorsements). Without such an instruction, there may be at least one juror who will be present for days/weeks of testimony but will not listen to or try to digest the facts because s/he is convinced of the accused's guilt because a woman cried rape. Of course, jurors can think they want to think, but at least judges have the opportunity to emphasize the importance and seriousness of the case.

Exquisite5 and other law students, good luck with your studies.
__________________
SGR
"To thee we'll cling forever"
http://sunshynelyfe.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.