<<That's just plain wrong. A criminal record *is* relevant.>>

While a criminal record may be relevant in the court of public opinion, it is not always relevant in an actual court.

Except in specific instances, Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits the introduction of "character" evidence, including evidence of past crimes.

"FRE 404(b) - Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identify, or absence of mistake or accident...."

While FRE 609 allows a witness's credibility to be impeached if that witness has been convicted of a felony or any crime involving untruthfulness (perjury, fraud, etc.) within the last 10 years, such evidence might not survive a challenge under FRE 403. FRE 403 provides that any relevant and otherwise admissible evidence may be excluded if that evidence is more prejudicial than probative. Thus, if the prosecutor could show that the alleged rape victim's crime was distant and did not have much bearing on her ability to be truthful in this case, it is likely it would be excluded because criminal convictions are seen as highly prejudicial.

Had the alleged rape victim in this case been convicted of perjury, fraud or some other crime involving untruthfulness, it is very likely that evidence would be admissible. However, a conviction for auto theft is a much more debatable question of law and whether a judge would admit it would depend on a number of factors, including the weight of the sum of the other evidence in the case.

(Note to other law geeks - I am referring to the FRE instead of the applicable state rules because I don't happen to have a copy of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence in front of me and I am assuming that the rules regarding character evidence are probably similar.)

It's rather naive to assume that the women who live in polygamist communities can leave anytime they want. There are several factors that make it quite difficult for them to leave despite the "lousy" treatment.

A majority of these women were raised in polygamist families and communities. They truly believe that if they leave the church, they will be damned for eternity. The polygamist lifestyle is all they have ever known. Imagine how difficult it would be to adapt to the outside world.

More importantly, how are these women supposed to support their numerous children when they leave? If local authorities and prosecutors won't even look into serious allegations of child sexual abuse, how easy do you think it would be for these women to get child support from the men that they weren't legally married to?

It is impossible to divorce the treatment of women in polygamist societies from the sexual abuse and neglect of children. The wives were once the abused children - they have simply grown up and now become the mothers of abused children. It's a cycle and it can not be explained away by saying "Oh, it's all right if they have multiple wives so long as they aren't abusing the children."

I'm not saying that all polyamorous relationships are inherently wrong - if there is true consent from all parties, fine by me. But, the situation that has been created by the Mormon fundamentalists in Utah, northern Arizona, and other parts of the Rocky Mountain west does not allow for true consent on the behalf of the women raised in these communities. Yes, these women are technically adults, but their upbringing in these twisted societies limits how much autonomy they have over decisions about whether to stay with the community or leave.

I have a few questions...

First, is the goal of the recommendations to "improve a women's health before conception" or to "improve pregnancy outcomes"? If it is to "improve a women's health before conception" as you state, and not to "improve pregnancy outcomes," then why are the recommendations limited to women of childbearing age? Is a woman's health only important if she is capable of conceiving? Because your recommendations are limited to women who are capable of conceiving, isn't it fair to assume that the true goal of the study is to "improve pregnancy outcomes" rather than to improve the health of pre-conception women?

Based upon the assumption that the recommendations are intended to improve pregnancy outcomes, why don't the recommendations address the use of birth control and abortion in improving pregnancy outcomes? Wouldn't ensuring that birth control is available to all women who are capable of conceiving, but incapable of or unwilling to follow your recommendations improve pregnancy outcomes? And, wouldn't having abortion available in cases where someone who did not follow such recommendations became pregnant improve pregnancy outcomes?

If not, why not?