(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Judge bars witnesses and lawyers from using the words "rape", "sexual assault", and "victim", among others, from a rape trial.

The legal reasoning is that labelling the accuser a "victim" presumes that a crime has occured, and that calling the acts under discussion "rape" is a legal conclusion that the jury needs to make, not the witness - and, in both cases, this presumption is prejudicial to the defendant.

Comments

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

Its a pretty old defense. My friends had to do the same thing during a mock trial for law school.

Kinda makes some sense really, rape is such a loaded word ( correctly or incorrectly ) that it can't help but taint the view of a situation.

[stormfeather.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but they also banned "sexual assault," "sexual assault kit" and similar things. Leaving the witness to describe it as sex, which implies consent, or struggle for words and look like an idiot, since they're also not allowed to explain to the jury that those words are banned.

All of that together is all a whole load of fucked-up, IMHO.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

All of that together is all a whole load of fucked-up, IMHO.

And a fast-track to "there's no such thing as non-consensual sex," which is a place I'd rather not go, thanks very much...

[giza.livejournal.com]

Why not just use "non-consensual sex" to describe the act? It looks like that particular term was not banned, and I think that phrase is rather explicit as to what it describes.

(I am not a lawyer, of course)

[stormfeather.livejournal.com]

Because it's pretty clunky when someone's describing what happened to them, especially if it's someone describing, for instance, "and I woke up and he was having non-consensual sex with me"... which just makes the witness look a bit of an idiot. Plus they have to think of that sort of thing, picking their way through a minefield of "non-allowed" words to find those that are, while meaning the same thing.

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

Yeah that's taking it a little too far. Ironically I focused too much on the word rape.

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

From one point of view I can see it... sort of... but from another, my Eru are the records of that trial ever going to read like George Lucas-written dialogue.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Worse. Government-bureaucrat-written.

[jl-williams.livejournal.com]

That's what silmaril said. ^_^

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

...Ouch!

[jl-williams.livejournal.com]

Oohhhhhhhhhh, SNAP!

[larabeaton.livejournal.com]

Are they banning words like "assault", "beating", "stole", "robbed", "murdered", and "fraud" from being used in trials, as well? Those are prejudicial, I would imagine.

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

Usually they're prefaced by "alleged" or changed to things like "forced entry"

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Then why not just use "alleged rape" or "alleged sexual assault"?

[thette.livejournal.com]

"He held me down, pushed the knife against my throat and allegedly raped me"?

Good Point

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Then I guess, under this judge's ruling, the language would have to be something along the lines of, "He held me down, pushed the knife against my throat and forced his penis into my vagina"?

"forced his penis into my vagina"

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

THATS not going to be triggering for a rape victim, going into that much detail... christ.

Re: Good Point

[post-ecdysis.livejournal.com]

Except that defense attorneys in Nebraska can then point out that the accuser is, you know, the kind of woman who describes the pee-pee and woo-woo in public using those sorts of words. :/ I think she'd have to go with "I woke up and found that he was doing the thing that a man and a woman do when they like each other very much, except that I didn't like him very much at all."

[jl-williams.livejournal.com]

Screw that. If I am a plaintiff, the fact that i have an assertion of being victimized by the defendant is implied, or else I wouldn't be in court.

Someone's been chomping at the PC-bit a little too long.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

I don't think this is PC.

Political correctness is trying to ensure that you reasonably don't upset people (yes, I know it can get convoluted).

I do not think it is reasonable to assume someone *wouldn't* be upset at being raped and being legally constrained to describe it as just sex.

[mrsteerpike.livejournal.com]

How about this??
The prosecution use words like "rape", "beat", "stole", "robbed" and "mudrered"
while the defence can use what ever more placid euphemisms it wants? That way both uses would direct a conclusion implied by their position. To flat out say "no, that word is a no go here" sounds kinda bogus to me. I mean, how about banning words like "guilt" and "innocent" since both are equally condusive of the opposite (yet in the interest of absolute political correctness) conclusion.