•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Rape shield laws were originally created during the 1970s to prohibit the admission of a victim’s past sexual history as evidence in court. Such laws aimed to prevent prejudicial questioning that could alter the jury's perceptions. However, they are deeply rooted in gendered biases, do not ensure fairness in the courtroom, and fail to keep pace with advancing technology. This paper argues that a thorough reexamination of rape shield laws is necessary to address these limitations and achieve impartial legal outcomes. Authors of the justice community display widespread support for reform of such laws. Researchers such as Flowe et al. (2006) and Loewen (2015) examined how stereotypes and gendered myths continually influence credibility in court. Meadows (2004) and Torres (2008) highlight the need to balance protections for all individuals involved in sexual assault cases. Lastly, Sweeny and Slack (2017) expose gaps in current protections and show how sexting and social media activity are used to judge victims unfairly. The discussion demonstrates the need for a reexamination of rape shield laws that eliminate bias, ensures equal treatment for both the accuser and the accused, and adapts to evolving digital evidence. A modernized approach to these laws must take place to uphold justice, accuracy, and fairness in sexual assault cases.

Download

Share

COinS