But this dovetails with the larger victimist-driven ‘reform’ that prevents consideration – though only in sex cases – of the accuser’s own background. In other criminal cases an accuser with a past criminal record, for example, would not receive such a free pass. And yet in the SO laws and jurisprudence the accuser’s relevant background and ‘patterns’ are protected from scrutiny while the accused’s own background or ‘patterns’ are not so protected from scrutiny.
Second, there remains as always the question – even though not a direct issue here – as to whether a greatly troubled accuser’s life problems were provably the result of some form of abuse, or whether they pre-existed the abuse. In the insistent demand that one focus only on the ‘harm’ that is evident, questions as to the etiology of the harm are often ignored.