Because of the nature of the case, I'd say the Judge was quite justified.
Note closely in the article, what is at trial here is not whether or not he raped her/had sexual intercourse with her, but whether or not the intercourse that they both admit to is itself rape.
It's a kind of trial of semantics almost. If she's allowed in court to point to him and say "he raped me", it undermines the trial.
Let both sides give an objective and truthful account of the events that happened without the prosecution defining the act as rape before jurors can make a decision. Afterwards, the jury can decide whether or not what happened was in actuality rape.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fire
... if stating the name of the crime of the accused will bias the jury then it must therefore be impossible to try anyone anywhere for rape..... this just seems stupid beyond belief to me.....
|
There can be (at least) two different kind of rape cases though.
1. Defendant denies ever having sexual intercourse. It was in fact, accomplished through force, and it is up to the prosecution to prove what happened.
2. Both parties admit to what happened, but disagree whether there was consent/force. Thus, the prosecution this time doesn't need to prove what happened, but demonstrate
how what happened is rape.
So, if the trial hinges upon the very definition of the act, instead of the existence of the act, defining the act to be the crime presupposes guilt. That's why in a case like this the judge decided to ban the word.