filtherton

Based on this, i wonder how anyone speaks at all while in a courtroom.

Demeter

Just like the use of the word rape...

__________________

I am not bound to please thee with my answers.
William Shakespeare

Jetée

That made no sense to me whatsooever...

You determine the definition of a term by re-iterating the same word in the explanation?


That is along the the same lines as defining 'door' as 'an object that has the likeness and consistencies of a door'.

Faulty logic.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

Demeter

If a woman cannot use the words rape or victim to describe the incident, then the accused shouldn't be able to use the words consensual or willing to describe the incident.
I don't think it's fair that she is limited to what she can say, unless it goes both ways.

__________________

I am not bound to please thee with my answers.
William Shakespeare

Willravel

Rape is a term to accurately describe the actions of a crime. Because of the nature of the crime, not the word itself, the word 'rape' carries with it negative connotations. So, to remove the word and not the description is not removing the negative connotations. It's a waste, and not only that it communicates how the judge is willing to treat the jury as if they're all complete idiots. If I was on that jury, I'd cause a mistrial in order for the case to get a judge who didn't have his or her head up his or her ass.

krwlz

Consensual and willing can be used either way however, by adding a simple little word called 'not'. Rape on the other hand is an emotionally charged word, and not even the technical term for what happened. That would be sexual assault.

Its not like she can't tell people what happened, it just means that she can't be a drama queen about it. How is this so confusing?

The whole point of the case is to determine whether it was consensual or willing. That is what determines how we define the incident.

It's not mistrial, its called avoiding sensationalism. Which has no place in our newspapers, much less the courtroom.

Demeter

I understand what you are saying, krwlz. The word rape carries a strong image. However, unless the word is used falsely, it shouldn't be denied.
For an assault victim, using the words 'not consentual' doesn't well describe the violation and damage done to him/her.

And it's not so much this case that bothers me, but rather, the precedent that may follow.
When a child points to an abuser and says 'that man had non-consensual sex with me' does it really accurately describe what happened?

__________________

I am not bound to please thee with my answers.
William Shakespeare

krwlz

That child could as easily say "That man sexually assaulted me" which does accurately describe what happened.

The thing with this case is, we don't know if she was raped. We don't know if she was a victim. Hell, the guy she's suing could very well be the victim of false charges right now.

That's what needs to get decided.

And as for precedent, I'm fairly certain that if a judge is allowed to ban any words, it isn't without precedent. Nor will it be limited to rape cases in the future.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm not defending rape, it is one of the most disgusting, despicable things a human being can do. We just don't know if it happened.

EDIT: Just another thought. This case is different than a standard rape case. We're not trying to decide if this is the guy who raped a woman, and what the punishment is. It's more academic in nature, and a decision as to what the appropriate facts are, and how they play out. Slight difference, large distinction if you ask me.

If there was no doubt about it being rape, I imagine she would be able to use the words, and thats as it should be. But the act in question has yet to be defined, and rape would indicate a particular definition.

Demeter

But that is why any case is before the courts - guilt or innocence is to be decided.
I don't think we can have judges saying that the word murder can't be used in murder trials (there's another word with significant meaning) or arson in arson trials, or fraud in fraud trials.

The unfortunate part is that the accuser isn't going to be stating she was forced into intercourse against her will. She will only be able to answer a barrage of questions where she will have to pick her words carefully. The defense could strategically frame questions where her lack of ability to use certain words may hamper her credibility.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Perhaps someone with experience in the courtroom would be able to say whether or not this really poses a problem, or if this case has just been sensationalized by the media.

__________________

I am not bound to please thee with my answers.
William Shakespeare

analog

In a he said/she said trial such as this, credibility is key. If she wants to accuse a man of rape, and have him put in jail for it, she damn sure better be able to tell her side of the story without saying the word "rape".

I mean really, the word "rape" is only useful in one sentence, "he raped me". That's it. The entire rest of her testimony will be about the events that transpired and her opinion of what happened. That one word will change nothing in the way she presents herself. Even if she's the biggest moron on the face of the planet, her legal counsel will still be able to tell her, "just say sexual assault". It's not a difficult switch-up. HER thing is trying to get the guy in jail over her opinion of the events... she's just pissed because now she can't bat her eyes and issue an emotional appeal like "he raped me" to try and sway (sym)pathetic jurors.

Rape is a horrible, horrible crime... but if you're a person who gets drunk when you go out, and you know you get sloppy and make decisions you may later regret, don't get drunk by yourself. I have a friend who behaves like this... she lives downtown, gets hammered, then wakes up the next morning with some dude in her bed because when she's drunk, she gets horny and forward, and advantage-taking guys take her drunk-as-hell ass back to her place because she practically begs them, in no uncertain terms, to go plow her. I've witnessed it first-hand and had to pry one guy off of her. The next day, she had no recollection of any of it. Have some personal responsibility.

krwlz

Yet again, analog sums it up better than I could have. Thanks analog.

mixedmedia

Well, he's summing something up, but in regards to this case it is pure speculation. And yes, speculation that is being used to sway opinion and/or validate existing pre-conceptions about this kind of rape case.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

filtherton

Wait, so everybody here who agrees with the judge thinks the members of the jury incapable of putting her testimony into context?

analog

I agree with you that it's asinine to assume people are too dumb and emotionally fragile, taken from a slice of the general population, to withstand emotional pandering.

But then, my experience on this planet tells me otherwise- on the whole, people are easily lead by emotional pandering, given the right subject. Take any conversation about kitties, puppies, kids, rape, domestic abuse, etc., and oppose the opinion of the emotional pandering, and see how far it gets you. Rational thinking goes out the window when you press the right buttons.

dksuddeth

+ 1,000

quoted for truth

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

m0rpheus

That one kind of confuses me as to why the judge would ban "sexual assault kit". Unless it has another official name?

__________________
"it never got weird enough for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

analog

Yes, it is often referred to as a "rape kit". Why he's removed the term "sexual assault kit" is beyond me, honestly. I'd think they'd ban "rape kit" instead. I'll have to find another article and see if it says why...