Online sexual history questionnaire
The Secret Barrister has also written a good deal about why the current rules should not be made any tighter.There are many who disagree, notably Harriet Harman (who has proposed legislation that would completely prohibit cross-examination about sexual history, however relevant it might be), and Vera Baird QC, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria.The point of this post is not to argue about the merits of the legislation, it is to question whether the Times story, penned as it was by the scrupulous and careful Frances Gibb, is actually borne out by the Limeculture research.But let’s assume in its favour that the survey is statistically rigorous.OSA refer to the Internet use for any activity that involves sexuality for the purposes of recreation, entertainment, exploration, support, education, commerce and/or seeking out sexual or romantic partners (Boies, 2004). In the last years, a strong double link has arisen between sexuality and this new medium: first, the Internet represented a novel arena for existing sexual practices; secondly, the Internet offered the chance to discover new sexual interests. I don’t know how many such ISVAs are currently working in the criminal justice system.Limeculture says that it has trained 450, but there may be other trainers, and no doubt not all their “graduates” are in fact working as ISVAs. The organisation sent out an online questionnaire to Advisers as part of an investigation into how the provisions relating to cross-examination on sexual history are working in criminal trials.
A systematic search of published online sexual activities inventories was performed using Psych Info and Pubmed (1993 to July 2013). S.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 prevents the defence in a sexual case from cross-examining about the sexual history of a complainant except with leave of the court, which can only be given in certain limited circumstances.