|
magic:
to answer your question: both. i would hope they think about the facts, are able to put themselves in my position, her position, etc. listen to the facts. but i don't expect them to censor her testimony or impressions because they might be prejudicial or offensive. to wit: if the judge wants to ban the prosecutor or the defense attorneys from using certain words that might prejudicial, or witness who are testifying in a technical sense, then i can understand it. to me, it's different when you're talking about the testimony of a witness not acting as an expert.
so a certified, trained and licensed m.e. or psychologist labelling it as rape? no, that shouldn't be allowed until the verdict.
the person who was the alleged victim? i think that if she thinks she was raped, she should be allowed to say that, and the jury can make up their own minds. the defense can call witnesses to testify that its impossible to classify it as rape, etc.
by the flipside, how would you feel if your sister, daughter, mother, etc - were in this woman's shoes? she earnestly believes she was raped by being robbed of the ability to consent, and she can't face the person without censoring her impressions?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|