Talk:Rape shield law

creating

Creating after deleting banned user's version. Plan to expand and make content global. FloNight ^talk 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Victim ID & the Media

"If the case is dropped or the alleged rapist is acquitted, most media will no longer shield the name of the victim"

Citation? Seems to be the case that the vast majority of news outlets never identify the purported victim. For example in the recent Hofstra university case even after the purported victim recanted she was not identified, however the men involved were still named. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammichraptor (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Per my understanding, rape shield is a law of evidence which prohibits cross examination a witness regarding her sexual experience. It has nothing to do with media reporting of sex crimes. In fact, I looked up the US cases in the article on media reporting of sex crimes and none of them contained the phrase "rape shield". I propose deleting the relevant section from this article and create a new article for it, say Media reporting of sex crimes. Craddocktm (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation for that section is a broken link but I think we should try to save that section and move it to the main rape article rather than deleting it. 76.85.196.138 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

References

I believe the misconception regarding it's applicability to media disclosure of victims names arises from Law and Order SVU's frequent mentioning of the statute in that context 2600:1010:B0D9:4024:F54B:D0D0:F8BA:936 (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Links

There is an article called "shield law" which discusses only the reporters'/media shield law. There should probably be a reference from there and a link to here. "Shield laws" generally refer to inadmissibility of evidence at trial, or privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.71 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No Criticism Section?

Why is there no criticism section of this page? Rape shield laws, when used to prevent the introduction of information that is both truthful and relevant, are patently a violation of the defendant's due process right to present truthful and relevant evidence.Skberry889 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for split

I'm a relatively new editor, so forgive me if I don't understand the proper procedure for article splitting. It seems that (at least to me) rape shield laws fall into two broad, and largely unrelated, categories. First are the rape shield laws prohibiting public dissemination of the names of alleged victims, and the other are laws, like FRE 412, that are evidentiary regulations used at trial to (arguably unconstitutionally) prohibit the introduction of certain types of evidence regarding the sexual history of the alleged victim. Does anybody else feel that this distinction merits two different articles, perhaps one called "Public dissemination rape shield laws" and "Evidentiary rape shield laws" (but I am certainly not married to these titles)? Also, this might allow the presentation of rape shield laws (both types) in a less Anglo-America-centric manner.Skberry889 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No spit required - There is a separate article for Publication Bans

Rape shield laws dealing with the prohibition of using the victim's sexual history during a criminal trial. Publication bans deal with prohibitions on the disclosure of a victim's identity.

User:WSDavittWSDavitt (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to move section regarding publication bans to "Publication bans" article

Rape shield laws are: "statutes which restrict or prohibit the use of evidence respecting the chastity of the victim of a are of other sexual offence" - Black's Law Dictionary

This Wikipedia article is incorrect as it suggest rape shield laws include publication bans. The Publication bans article deals with prohibitions on the disclosure of a victim's identity.

Comments?

User:WSDavittWSDavitt (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

To WSDavitt I agree, or at least agree in part, inasmuch as the prohibition would be properly termed a publication ban. Also, just a friendly heads up about the use of Black's Law Dictionary: an actual statute or case would more persuasive than BLD, which is just a recitation of existing statutes. Just a little nugget from law school. I mean no offense by this, as this is just a just a "word to the wise" so to speak. Skberry889 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Assymmetry?

Is the shield law protecting the alleged victim and not the alleged perpetrator ? That seems unfair. More to the point here, the wp article should be more specific about who is protected by the shield law and who is not.

37.168.28.135 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

To the user User talk:37.168.28.135|talk, I don't understand your question, could you please elaborateSkberry889 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)