VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:55:36 11/23/03 Sun
Author: Samara
Subject: Re: Reading 7
In reply to: Vera 's message, "Re: Reading 7" on 14:52:46 11/20/03 Thu

>As you did not provide more context, it is difficult
>to identify which ideas are being linked by the
>linking words.
>
>Vera

Dear teacher, I'm sorry about that. I thought we were just suppose to show the sentences where we found these connectors. That's why I just cut off the rest of the sentence. Here it goes the same connectors with their contexts:

Notwithstanding:
For now, however, there is no reason to think that the Bryant prosecution will be one of the exceptional cases in which evidence of the accuser's sexual history will be relevant notwithstanding the rape shield law.

Still:
Even without proof of physical force or violence, Bryant could still be convicted.

Yet:
The similarities between the Kobe Bryant case and the O.J. Simpson case are obvious. An extremely popular athlete -- one of such superstar status that his last name need not be uttered to identify him to millions of fans -- stands accused of a heinous crime. A media circus ensues. Yet there is a profound difference between the cases, as well.

In addition:
Such laws are meant to prevent defense attorneys from publicly humiliating rape victims at trial -- a common occurrence before rape shield laws were enacted. They are also meant to prevent defendants from suggesting that the victim somehow "asked for it," or worse, that as a "loose" woman, she may be raped with impunity. In addition to these justifications for excluding the accuser's prior sexual history, there is also doubt about whether the accuser's general sexual history is relevant to the issue of whether she consented to have sex with the defendant on the particular occasion in question (…)

After all:
(…) After all, the fact that a woman has consented to sex in the past -- and did not bring a rape accusation -- hardly suggests that she consented to sex when she says that a rape occurred.

Despite:
Despite its rape shield law, Colorado also provides for the rare circumstances in which an accuser's prior sexual history may be argued to be relevant.

Reference: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/24/findlaw.analysis.dorf.kobe.bryant/

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.