Well, here's a good example-- there's a lot of questioning of the person's (and in this instance it's typically a woman) sexual history. There are two kinds of women in the questioning process: perfect and imperfect victims.

The "perfect victim" is, by and large, entirely sober with no history of ever having used drugs or alcohol, never having had sex with anyone before, usually visibly religious, visibly demure, never has a history of wearing exposed clothing. She does not know her attacker; it was a random assault, preferably in a public place like a subway platform or an alleyway. She must also behave "like an appropriate victim." Too emotional or not emotional enough puts her in the "imperfect" category.

An "imperfect victim" drinks or was drinking, has had sex before, was assaulted by someone she knows, has been seen wearing revealing clothing, maybe uses birth control. If any of the stipulations of the "perfect victim" are broken then she's absolutely out to dry where prosecuting the rapist is concerned-- Maybe you were shaking your villainous breasts at him seductively. Maybe you lead him on. You're on birth control, doesn't that mean you admit that you want sex 24/7? Can you really be discerning? Here is a case in Manitoba; here is a case in Montana; here is a case in Georgia. And those are all unfortunately very, very recent.

In other words, the woman's life prior to the crime becomes a justification for the crime being committed. We do not prosecute other types of crimes this way.