From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

How do we know it is irrelevant?

"Second, juries tend not to be able to assess the relevance of evidence of the complainant's sexual history. As a result, evidence of this meta is more prejudicial than it often merits"

Just how do we know this? Who is to say whose assessment of the complainant's sexual history is more relevant. How on earth can it be proved? It seems to me this is really 'no man's land' conjecture anyway and the best bet would always be to leave it to the twelve men and women true who can analyse and discuss every bit of the evidence and the manner in which it was given. The prosecution can always present an "active sexual history doesn't mean anything" argument for the jury to mull over.

It seems quite ridiculous in law that whenever a school of thought comes up with some new idea why certain evidence is not relevant or is too prejudicial, it is it's role to sell that theory to the public. Unfortunately what seems to actually happen however is that instead of convincing the general public they simply declare the public are too dumb to understand and thus their representatives, the jury, should be denied outright that evidence in a court of law.

--Edward Carson 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

First, welcome to the site and thank you for some great edits! I welcome you to add these concerns or views to the main article, as the sole purpose of this wiki is to add and extent views on all subjects, all views are welcome.

--Mike 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)