Posted on 06/16/2008 7:28:58 AM PDT by Aristotelian
While we’re at it, let’s ban “guilty” and “innocent” too. They’re real prejudicial to the jury. As in, “My client is innocent” or “I urge you to find the defendent guilty.”
"Officer Brown, can you describe for the court the picnic?"
"Yes. We responded to a 911 call and when we arrived at the picnic we saw the picnicker lying on the ground."
PC idiocy................
Can you imagine? “You have a woman who’s been raped and she has to say that she had sexual intercourse with the man...”
The woman has “sexual intercourse” with her husband. That’s not what she had with her rapist.
Have they considered that the accurate terms are essential to a fair trial? The price for their political correctness will be confused jurors, criminals going free, and more "involuntary sexual intercourse participants" who can't call themselves "rape victims" in front of these pro-rapist judges.
Fortunately, Smith & Wesson and Winchester provide an alternative solution to the problem if the courts fail.
Will judges ban evidence next as “prejudicial to defendants”?
Oh, for Pete’s sake. It’s bad enough the courts have to take into consideration the mental state and the sociological background of the poor convicted criminal. Now they feel compelled to use politically correct language that blurs reality. I thought that courts might be a refuge of objectivity.
This issue needs to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. I can’t imagine a more important application of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. We have adversarial court proceedings so that opposing views can each get heard. Victim can say “he raped me”, defendant can say “I made love to her”, and the jury can decide which version they find more credible.
When this train finally turns around....these damn judges better head for the hills....
Actually, to be consistent, they’ll need to ban the terms “defendant” and “accused” too, since those tend to imply that the, er, um, fine citizen before us, may have done something wrong.
You have a woman who’s been raped and she has to say that she had sexual intercourse with the man, rather than calling him her attacker....
Would the damn judge be offended if she said “forceable sexual intercourse?”.....
“When this train finally turns around....these damn judges better head for the hills....”
I’d rather they stuck around for the tar and feathers.
It is called left wing black robed dictators. And our Congress does not have the backbone to take the action necessary to stop their violation of the Constitution.
Somehow, I think if a judge making such a declaration were tarred and feathered, we'd see a resurgence in the use of those terms.
That is just the stupidest, sorry I mean the most progressive...
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.