在性侵案件中，品格证据的使用是一个重要而复杂的证据法问题。鉴于性侵犯罪的受害者绝大多数为女性，打击性侵犯罪、保护女性人身安全成为了女性主义运动的一大目标。第二次女性主义浪潮直接促进了强奸盾牌规则在美国的确立。“反强奸运动”还推动了针对性侵案件中被告人品格证据规则的变革。与此同时，在性侵案件中使用品格证据可能带来的不公正偏见等问题也引起了很多的争论。女性主义是推动性侵案件品格证据发展的动力，因此，可以从女性主义视角出发对性侵案件中的品格证据规则重新进行审视。女性主义被认为是性侵案件证据规则发展的重要原因。从梳理女性主义思想出发，有利于寻找适合的女性主义视角来分析证据法问题：男女的生理差异是造成性别分割的基础，因此，本研究提出了“核心生理差异”这个概念作为区分男女性别问题的界限。“核心生理差异”主要有两点：一是，男性与女性的性生理结构不同。二是，女性具有生育的生理功能。在处理涉及性别的法律问题时，在属于存在男女核心差异的情况下，可以重新衡量目前的话语是否合理；在不属于核心差异的情况下，强调自由主义的形式平等。通过研究我国强奸犯罪的数据和案例发现，我国强奸犯罪黑数可能较大。同时，我国强奸犯罪的处理存在很多问题。因此，我国有确立强奸盾牌规则的必要性和可能性。从本文所持的女性主义观点出发，性侵案件的被害人的性品格证据实际上不涉及到男女两性之间的核心生理差异，因此不需要基于性别给予被害人品格证据以特殊对待。从女性主义的角度出发，结合证据法的理念对被害人的性品格证据规则进行分析后得出的结论是：根据当代的证据法精神，性侵案件中被害人的品格证据一般不应被容许。在此基础上，我国的性侵案件中被害人的性品格证据应该以不可采为原则，同时在容许被害人与被告人之间的性历史和容许非性品格证据的基础上，对其他的例外慎重考虑。对性侵案件中被告人品格证据规则的研究。在探讨了对被告人品格证据的争议，从法律规定和实践两个角度对我国目前强奸案件中被告人的品格证据的使用进行了分析后发现：我国对被告人品格证据使用是很普遍的，但是法律规制不足。因此，本研究试图提出符合本文所持女性主义理念和证据法精神的性侵案件被告人性品格证据规则：被告人性品格证据在定罪时一般不应被容许，在量刑中则应允许使用；在性侵儿童案件中，考虑到保护儿童的重要性，可以允许使用。
In sexual assault cases, the admissibility of character evidence is a significant yet intricate issue. Due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims are women, fighting sexual assaults become a primary mission of the feminist movements. The second wave of feminism helped established the rape shield law in the U.S. The anti-rape movement helped promoted legislations concerning defendants’ sexual propensity. Meanwhile, there are a lot of debates over the relevancy and the possible unfair prejudice that character evidence might bring. Since feminism is the motivator of the developments of character evidence rules in sexual assault cases, this paper will try to re-analyze the character evidence rules through a feminist perspective.Feminism has a deep impact on the development of character evidence rules in sexual assault cases. It was regarded as the primary reason why those rules changed. This research started by introducing feminist movements, the main ideas of different feminist streams. Since the biological differences are the bases of sexual differences, define the scope of biological differences are a natural choice. This research suggests that using the new concept “core biological differences” to define the gender differences could be helpful. “Core biological differences” include two fundamental differences: the first is that males and females have different sex organs; the second is that females shoulder the main responsibility of procreation. When dealing with gender-related legal issues, we should resort to “core biological differences”: if there is core biological difference involved, it may justify different treatments; however, we should reassess whether it fits the spirit of feminism; if there is no core biological difference involved, equal treatments towards both genders might be the most reasonable solution.The study of victims’ sexual propensity in sexual assault cases. This research gathered some crime data in China and analyzed the current sex crime situation. It evaluated the necessity and possibility for China to establish a rape shield law. From the perspective of this research's feminist angle: since there is no “core biological difference” regarding the character evidence of the victim or accused in sexual assault cases, there is no justification for special treatments toward victims’ character. Combing the spirit of feminism and the principle of modern evidence rules: victim’s sexual propensity should not be admissible in sexual assault cases. Therefore, the general rules of China’s rape shield law should be: victim’s sexual propensity shall not be admissible in sexual assault cases. In the meantime, the sexual history between the victim and the accused should be allowed. As to other exceptions, we should be cautious at this stage.The study of the defendants’ sexual character evidence in sexual assault cases. This research explored the dividing opinions concerning the use of defendants’ characters. In order to get a clear glimpse of the current situation, this research studied the use of character evidence in China's legal practice from two ways: the laws regarding this issue and their application in cases. From where, we find that in China's legal system, defendants’ character evidence is frequently mentioned, however, the laws regarding them are not comprehensive. Based on those findings, this research suggests that from the feminist angel and the rules of evidence: the defendant’s sexual propensity shall not be allowed to decide whether they are guilty or not; they shall be allowed in the sentencing process. Due to the importance of protecting children from sexual assaults, the defendant’s similar prior acts can be admissible in sexual assault cases against children.
