Word 'Rape' Banned at Trial

[Hugh Lincoln]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=2397636

LINCOLN - For 13 excruciating hours, Tory Bowen testified in court about waking up with a man she didn't recall meeting. She said he was sexually assaulting her.

Bowen, however, was barred from using terms like "rape" and "sexual assault" to describe her plight because a judge ruled they could be prejudicial to the defendant.

Defense lawyers applaud such rulings as aiding fair trials.

Nah. It's about PC gone NUTS.

[Gunny]

LINCOLN - For 13 excruciating hours, Tory Bowen testified in court about waking up with a man she didn't recall meeting. She said he was sexually assaulting her.

Bowen, however, was barred from using terms like "rape" and "sexual assault" to describe her plight because a judge ruled they could be prejudicial to the defendant.

:dunno:

[diuretic]

I can see the judge's point. The witness needs to describe what happened to her. If she uses a term like, "he raped me," under either examination in chief (I don't know if the US has the term, but it's where one side is examining the witness it has called) then she is making a legal judgement. Rape depends on lack of consent, all she needs to do is to describe the sexual act committed on her and emphasise that she didn't consent to the act.

No big deal really. No practical import.

[Gunny]

I can see the judge's point. The witness needs to describe what happened to her. If she uses a term like, "he raped me," under either examination in chief (I don't know if the US has the term, but it's where one side is examining the witness it has called) then she is making a legal judgement. Rape depends on lack of consent, all she needs to do is to describe the sexual act committed on her and emphasise that she didn't consent to the act.

No big deal really. No practical import.

I disagree. Not being able to call something what it is, is ridiculous.

[diuretic]

I know what you mean and I'm not being difficult, but I can see what the judge is on about. In my jurisdiction the wording of the indictment for rape is this:

(Details of time and place are included in the head of the indictment to establish jurisdiction and that the allegation is within the required time for the indictment to be preferred)

A raped B.

That's it. Now if B (the victim) gets in the witness box and says, "'A' raped me", then isn't that sort of giving the presumption of innocence a hammering? Like it or not the only people with the power to say "A raped B" is the jury.

A good prosecutor will simply draw out the evidence of the victim. It's up to the jury to find on the facts if (a) there was a sexual act that comes within the definition of "sexual intercourse" according to the statute and (b) that the sexual act occurred without the consent of the victim.

[Gunny]

I know what you mean and I'm not being difficult, but I can see what the judge is on about. In my jurisdiction the wording of the indictment for rape is this:

(Details of time and place are included in the head of the indictment to establish jurisdiction and that the allegation is within the required time for the indictment to be preferred)

A raped B.

That's it. Now if B (the victim) gets in the witness box and says, "'A' raped me", then isn't that sort of giving the presumption of innocence a hammering? Like it or not the only people with the power to say "A raped B" is the jury.

A good prosecutor will simply draw out the evidence of the victim. It's up to the jury to find on the facts if (a) there was a sexual act that comes within the definition of "sexual intercourse" according to the statute and (b) that the sexual act occurred without the consent of the victim.

All this accomplishes in essence, IMO, is taking the "sting" out of crime by giving it a less offensive name. It's the same as not being able to profile criminals. How on Earth is law enforcement supposed to concentrate on the criminal base if they aren't allowed to call them who and what they are? And if it shows a trend in one specific ethnicity or group, then so be it.

It boggles the how how we as a society can be so intent on defeating ourselves trying to be politically correct.

And PC is just as bad, and profiling as anything else, it's just a matter of the name under which it's running. PC sure has NO problem profiling white separatists, or any other white group for that matter. No problem whatsoever with stereotyping conservatives.

I can hardly wait for the backlash.:laugh2:

[diuretic]

I have to disagree. It's not about pc, it's about what happens in court. On the indictment it reads "A raped B".

[Gunny]

I have to disagree. It's not about pc, it's about what happens in court. On the indictment it reads "A raped B".

What happens in court IS about PC. Case in point being this article.

[diuretic]

What happens in court IS about PC. Case in point being this article.

No it's about preserving the presumption of innocence and allowing a jury to find on the facts. In reality it probably makes no material difference but the US like Australia has a legal system inherited from the English common law where procedure is paramount and things like this make a big difference. The important thing in a criminal trial in both our countries is "fairness". A victim/witness declaring, "he raped me" in front of a jury could be seen as being prejudicial. If she simply describes what happened to her then the jury can hear the evidence and make up their own minds/its own mind (I never know if I should call a jury by a collective or individual term).

[Gunny]

No it's about preserving the presumption of innocence and allowing a jury to find on the facts. In reality it probably makes no material difference but the US like Australia has a legal system inherited from the English common law where procedure is paramount and things like this make a big difference. The important thing in a criminal trial in both our countries is "fairness". A victim/witness declaring, "he raped me" in front of a jury could be seen as being prejudicial. If she simply describes what happened to her then the jury can hear the evidence and make up their own minds/its own mind (I never know if I should call a jury by a collective or individual term).

By the time the prosecution and defense get done weeding out potential jurors, it's pretty safe to assume who is going ot come down on what side of the fence anyway.

Point, since when did the law presume jurors to be blithering idiots incapable of thinking for themselves since THAT is exactly what they are chosen to do?

I NEVER get picked. Must be because I look like such a nice guy.:laugh2:

[diuretic]

Jeez juries....don't get me started :laugh2:

Inscrutable, that's all I can say :cool:

[Gunny]

Jeez juries....don't get me started :laugh2:

Inscrutable, that's all I can say :cool:

LOL ... the defense can't get rid of me fast enough when going through the selection process. I sometimes think they figure I'll just get up and break off a table leg and bludgeon the accused to death because I've already decided they're guilty.:laugh2:

[diuretic]

LOL ... the defense can't get rid of me fast enough when going through the selection process. I sometimes think they figure I'll just get up and break off a table leg and bludgeon the accused to death because I've already decided they're guilty.:laugh2:

Hint: Stop glaring at the nice defence counsel and smiling at the nasty prosecutor :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Hint: Stop glaring at the nice defence counsel and smiling at the nasty prosecutor :laugh2:

Actually, I have this "if looks could kill I'd be the last man on Earth" look about me, and I KNOW how to use it to my advantage. ;)

[diuretic]

That'll do it, you'll get out of jury duty every time :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Its a legal conclusion that is why she can't use it. She/prosecutor must prove teh elements of "rape".

[Gunny]

Its a legal conclusion that is why she can't use it. She/prosecutor must prove teh elements of "rape".

Regardless WHAT it is called, the prosecutiion must prove the elements of rape. Not being allowed to use the actual term that consitutes the charge against the defendant is nonsense.

[Missileman]

Regardless WHAT it is called, the prosecutiion must prove the elements of rape. Not being allowed to use the actual term that consitutes the charge against the defendant is nonsense.

The guy is charged with "rape". The jury's been told he's accused of "rape". Whether their encounter was actually rape or not is a matter for the jury to decide. As has been said already, simply letting the victim get on the stand and say, "he raped me" doesn't help the jury find the truth.