Posted on 06/08/2008 5:05:44 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
It’s the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.
She was raped.
But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word “rape” in front of a jury. The term “sexual assault” also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word “assailant” to describe the man who allegedly raped her.
The defendant’s presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen’s right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
If it wasn’t “rape,” then what the h*&( was it? Forced consensual s—?!
Is this happening as a forerunner to Muslim males being able to do whatever they want to women and it’s just “okay?”
This is not the first time I have seen this come up. The thing that is so amazing about it is that it basically bans the facts from a trial.
That PC enough?
To say "he raped me" invades the province of the jury. To say "I didn't give my permission" is a statement of fact.
I’m conflicted on this one.
The common practice of shielding the “victim’s” identity but releasing the “perp’s” goes exactly the other way. It assumes that a crime occurred and that she is inded a victim, thus prejudging the case.
I believe if it were up to me I’d allow each of the two main parties to use whatever language they wished, but attorneys and others would have to use less loaded language.
“We the Judges of The United States....”
Remember back in the old days when we had the First Amendment and you could say whatever you wanted to say? Yeah. Them were the days.
If we didn't assume that a crime occured then what the hell are they holding a trial for?
Another location that is now not on the list of places to retire to....
Perfect.
So true.
Next thing you know the judge will not allow crying or emotionally outbursts or tears by the alleged victims
Of course you’re wrong. You’re pretending that a “legal conclusion” is the only possible meaning of a word generally used in the language. It’s as if, because a word has been used in a law, suddenly it’s real meaning no longer exists.
When such legalistic procedural “logic” trumps the plain meanings of words, common sense is gone and the law is a mockery.
Is this the case that happened a while ago or another one ???
I guess if a person shoots another person....the term murder can no longer be used!!!!
of course...none of these terms are excluded if it is a white on black crime....because everyone knows...that’s a hate crime!!!!
but....rape is Not politically correct!!!
My Granddad was the number 2 guy on the Lincoln PD back in the 40’s/early 50s. I imagine he’s doing flip-flops in his grave over this one!
In most of these cases it is agreed that sexual intercourse occurred and it is agreed who the two parties were. The only question is whether she consented to the intercourse. If she did, no crime took place. If we go into it with the firmly held notion that a rape occurred or we wouldn’t be having a trial, why bother to have a trial at all?
This is a very different situation from the one where it is agreed by both sides that a crime occurred, but it is debated whether the accused is the right guy. (This type of trial has become less common due to DNA evidence.)
Officer, you arrested this man? Answer: yes. On what charge?
Get ready for more and a lot worse if Obama starts appointing Judges. Federal courts will affect local criminal trials.
We go into it with a firmly held notion that a crime occured. A charge was made, investigated by the law enforcement authorities, and it was determined a crime was committed. All of that has to have happened or else nobody would have been arrested. So none of that is speculation. The defendant has the right to a presumption of innocence but not to the presumption that there was no crime.
Yes.
Wait till Obama gets in and is in total control of executive, legislative and judicial. No one will be able to utter the words murder, arson, theft, assault, torture, kidnapping, incest, bigamy, pedophelia, or "I have to go potty" in a courtroom.
Using the term "hate crime" will be okay though, as it's a one-way racial crime, so only half-prejudicial.
All we need is more federal judges appointed by the Messiah......on top of the scores that Bubba appointed.
Well, this article probably won't sway those gruntled conservative voters who post here who will stay home in November or vote third party insuring that the radicals, crazies and fascists jurists like this particular judge will control the entire judicial framework from the Supremes on down to the circuit courts..
Leni
Migrant guest penetrators.
Nonsense and poppycock.
the accuser makes an accusation. The defendant denies it. Other evidence is brought forward. The jury then decides.
I guess a woman knows whether she was raped or not, although she may be lying,a s we saw at Duke.
But the jury decides if the charges are true. But should they have to figure out what the charges ARE?
You are overlooking the Duke rape case, where a crime did, indeed occur, but it wasn’t rape, and it wasn’t prosecuted, and the perp walked off scot free.
A guy picks up a chick, goes home with her, and they get it on. He goes home in the morning and later in the day is arrested. He is charged with rape and the media and court language all assumes that the crime of rape indeed occurred.
Since DNA evidence means he cannot claim that he isn’t the guy, what line of defense would you suggest he adopt? If a rape occurred, he’s automatically guilty.
Please keep in mind that in this situation there is generally no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred other than the “victim’s” testimony. Why should one person’s testimony be automatically accepted over another person’s?
“Okay, he stuck his ****** inside my **** against my will and then he came. Can I say “came”?”
Let me guess, the judge is a Dem?
Couldn’t find him when I searched.
Which of course means that rape shouldn't be investigated or prosecuted every again because of the Duke case. </sarcasm>
Well then what is his official charge? If not ‘rape’.
Nebraska court. I doubt it.
To say "he raped me" invades the province of the jury.
"he raped me" is an accusation. The jury doesn't make accusations, it decides whether they are true in law.
There's a reason why the lead player at a trial is called "the accused"
How about this? A guy meets a chick, takes her home, she refuses his advances, he rapes her. But still, it's her word against his. Since all we have is the victim's testimony then why bother trying to charge anyone with anything? Is that what you're saying?
Nebraska has had too many Democrat governors who appointed democrat judges. These governors included Ben Nelson, Bob Kerry, and Jim Exon. Democrats in Nebraska have done a good job at fooling people that they are conservative and really care about the people.
The charges are filed by the state. The prosecutor is the advocate for the state’s case and is one of the parties to the case.
The judge and the court proceedings are supposed to be neutral between the two sides. As I said, I’m conflicted on this one, but I don’t think it’s inherently unreasonable for a judge to require in general that non-assuming language be employed. However, I think having this apply to the “victim’s” testimony is unreasonable.
I hope you all remember that if she is lying, we do indeed have a victim in the courtroom and it isn’t her.
The category of crime most often overturned due to newly available DNA evidence is sexual assault. There are a number of reasons for that, but it hardly indicates that all “victims” are truthful and accurate.
To hell with the judge. What does the law say?
“To say “he raped me” invades the province of the jury. To say “I didn’t give my permission” is a statement of fact.
“
That’s nothing but doublespeak. Rape IS not giving permission.
Because the US has more lawyers that any other nation on earth and they need the work?
Next thing you know they’ll not allow the victim to ever be in the court room or for the defendant to be referred to as such. The jury will have to guess who the perp and victims are.
Nope, although I don’t know of another type of charge that is routinely filed without any evidence other than one of the parties that a crime even occurred.
How about this, for those cases where the only issue is one of whether the intercourse was consensual? The court remains neutral on the issue of whether a crime occurred until the jury reaches a verdict.
What’s unreasonable about that?
These cases invariably, due to lack of any other possible evidence, come down to who tells a better story on the stand, or who is more sympathetic to the jury. Given the fact that most of us have known both men and women who are very believable liars, this is hardly a recipe for a good verdict.
What’s your suggestion, make accusation equivalent to conviction, skip the trial and go straight to the sentencing?
“I’m definitely living in an alternate universe. This is unbelievable.
Wait till Obama gets in and is in total control of executive, legislative and judicial. No one will be able to utter the words murder, arson, theft, assault, torture, kidnapping, incest, bigamy, pedophelia, or “I have to go potty” in a courtroom.
Using the term “hate crime” will be okay though, as it’s a one-way racial crime, so only half-prejudicial.
All we need is more federal judges appointed by the Messiah......on top of the scores that Bubba appointed.
Well, this article probably won’t sway those gruntled conservative voters who post here who will stay home in November or vote third party insuring that the radicals, crazies and fascists jurists like this particular judge will control the entire judicial framework from the Supremes on down to the circuit courts..”
You are so right, MinuteGal! I just don’t know WHAT would sway those conservative voters who say they are staying home or voting third party in November. One thing for sure, if they do they will be electing Obama as our next President. They might as well just go vote for Obama so they can then say they voted for a “winner”. Makes me ill to think of Obama in the White House!
Here’s another possible take on it: If you don’t allow the victim to state plainly her own perception of what happened, then you’ve created a system where the defendant has a right to face his accuser in open court, but once you get there, the victim does not have the right to accuse.
Protecting the accused from a plain English description of his crimes can not possibly be considered to have anything to do with justice.
I’ve stated that I think the accuser, and the accused, should be able to describe their perception of what happened in their own words. I just don’t think the court should take sides until the jury reaches a verdict.
Perhaps I have an unusual take on this. For about 20 years my job had me working in homes. Quite often nobody was there but the lady of the house and me.
You would be hard-pressed to find a less likely rapist than myself, but I could have been accused by any of these women and had a very difficult time proving my innocence. There ARE nutso women, just as there are nutso men.
It is perhaps a shame, but when the ONLY evidence is “he said, she said” isn’t that almost a definition of reasonable doubt?
In a murder trial, the prosecution should be allowed to characterize the deceased's death as a murder; the defense, in turn, should be allowed to call it justifiable homicide, or an accident, or a suicide--or whatever fits the defense's theory. Likewise, in a rape trial, the prosecution should be allowed to use the verb "rape" (or some word form thereof), whereas the defense would refer to the same incident as consensual sex.
I very much dislike the view that jurors must be treated as high-grade morons, who have just enough intelligence to function in society, but not quite enough to understand that the defense and the prosecution are advocates for opposing sides, and are therefore prone to frame the case in terms most congenial to their respective theories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.