[openasocket]

>The legal system in western countries is very biased in favour of rape accusers.

This is patently false. Conviction rates for rape are far lower compared to other crimes[1]

>Shield laws are a concrete manifestation of that

Shield laws make it so news reporters cannot be forced to reveal their sources, I don't see what this has to do with rape cases.

>Being asked a few questions is in no way comparable.

Being forced to re-experience a traumatic event by a party determined to discredit you is pretty horrible.

Also, you should look at the case linked. The accused was found assaulting the girl in an alley by third party witnesses, and received six months probation.

[1]Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005

[sievebrain]

Conviction rates don't mean much by themselves because anyone can cause conviction rates to rise or fall by adjusting how many complaints are accepted and turned into cases at the police reception desk. The fact that conviction rates are lower than for other crimes just means that people are more likely to report unprosecutable cases: either because the accusations are false, or because there is no evidence.

There are 'rape shield laws' which is what I was referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

> Being forced to re-experience a traumatic event by a party determined to discredit you is pretty horrible.

So what? Being accused of rape is also pretty horrible and being jailed for it is VERY horrible. People who aren't willing to go in front of a judge and jury for these cases are one source of dropouts and the low conviction rate, but they must have known that'd be a part of the process when they made a complaint.

[openasocket]

> The fact that conviction rates are lower than for other crimes just means that people are more likely to report unprosecutable cases: either because the accusations are false, or because there is no evidence.

If there routinely isn't enough evidence to convict an accused rapist, that would imply that the system isn't biased against the accused.

>There are 'rape shield laws' which is what I was referring to:

Sorry, I should have caught that. It appears this term refers to a bunch of different laws pertaining to rape cases in different jurisdictions. The general idea, that the victim's sexual history is not admissible evidence, makes sense to me. Whether or not the victim had multiple sexual partners or was promiscuous is irrelevant to the facts of the case, and serves only to hurt the victim's reputation. In many of these cases all we have to go on is the testimony of the accuser and the accused, so it is easy for these cases to devolve into character assassination. Obviously this has to be done in such a way that it does not infringe on the rights of the accused to mount a defense. Is there some specific provision in these laws you disagree with, or the entire concept?