Rape case bans the word 'Rape'
 

Article

Without really knowing more of the facts it is hard for me to take a side. And I understand the need for a fair trial has to weigh both sides and not be able to bias the jury to irrelevant facts. But to me this story is scary for a different reason, for the possible precedent that it may set for other rape (assault) cases.

How about we ban the words 'idiot' and 'judge'? Or maybe 'justice' and 'freedom'?

If a jury is too stupid to make a fair decision, then they should make it harder to get out of jury duty and do better jury selection. If the judge is at a point where they don't trust a jury with basic words like rape and victim, the courtroom has become a circus.

Gotta agree. There is something very bad about this and the precedent it sets.

The judge probably did this because of the power those words in hold in the courtroom and the overall litigation process for the jury. The judge would not want an impartial jury to be swayed by the constant repetition of the words.


Aside from that, I really do not see the point. It is yet another story that has little backing and little to go on. Sorry.

See here: of course the 'victim' holds bias, and even blatantly admits that she would want to testify on that behalf. I'd gotta say I'd look like the biggest asshole in the deliberation area if I wasn't swayed by an outburst like that. It holds no relevance to use the words if the jury has already been briefed on the subject matter beforehand. I say the judge made the correct decision in exercising the rights he is entitled to in order to ensure a fair and just trial. Simple as that.

The English language is deep and wide. Only a few words were removed. There are many words and phrases that could easily replace them, if not clarify them. Lawyers make a lot of money for a reason--they're pretty smart. (Well, a lot of them are, anyway.)

I am curious how one can ban the word rape on a trial where the defendant is charged with the crime of rape..... 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.....

That man forced himself upon me.. I did not agree to have sex with him.. I was too incapacitated to make a logical decision, and he knew it It was not consensual. See, no need to just blatantly say "that man raped me". While I agree baring the use of specific words in court is unjust and shouldn't be done, it just isn't the end of the case.

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.

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.

It's been said before, and I agree. This trial is not about whether or not the man raped her, it's about whether or not the sex they both admit to happening, was rape. By allowing people to call the intercourse "rape", they're planting a seed of guilt every time they use the word.

Also has been brought up, there are a ton of other ways to indicate non consensual intercourse. That's one. Instead of saying, "that man raped me", it should be, "that man and I had sex, but I did not consent". Yes, there is a huge difference in the wording used.

It seems that, in proving guilt, she's trying to say that she should be able to "not think". It scares me that someone who doesn't wish to ponder her words wants to send a person to jail over them.

If all that sends a person to jail is your "word", I would prefer that your "word" be a factual account of events from your perspective, not an emotional appeal, such as "that man raped me". Because really, "that man raped me" is just an emotional appeal.

Fire, etc.: "Rape" is not the name of the crime. It would be "sexual assault" or "sexual battery" or any one of a few other terms, depending on the charges and what it's proven they've done. "Rape" is not a technical word for anything, it's a colloquial, emotional word that represents a large body of sex crimes.

You may note that "sexual assault" was not banned (even though "sexual assault kit" was).

interesting- I was going with the articles statement that he was charged with raping the alleged victim......... if it is not in the charge then it is not as bad to ban it- still seems like a bunch of orwellian doublespeak to me though-

I actually was talking to a friend of mine like a year ago and was saying they should ban using terms that aren't the legal charge from courtrooms.

Exactly like analog is talking, they serve no purpose in a courtroom except to use the extreme negative conotation of the word, to place guilt on someone who may not, or may, be guilty.

I have to agree with the judge, and those who say it's quite fair to ban the word rape and the word victim in this context.

What I think should happen is that she should say what he did to her, in logical/factual terms, and not be allowed to appeal to emotion to make her case. Until the person she accuses of raping her is convicted (assuming that he is) she's legally not the victim, she's the accuser. Until such a time as the defendant is convicted, he's the accused, he's not a rapist, legally speaking. Just the facts ma'am, no emotional appeals.

got news for you my friend. the courtrooms are already a circus. when judges took the matter of finding law out of the juries hands and charged them with only considering facts of the case, it became nothing more than a kangaroo court where cases become pre-decided by the judge and prosecution.

i think it's bullshit, but on a general level. you call someone to testify in a case, and you make them swear to give the truth, the whole truth, so help them god.

but don't say "this" in your testimony.

oh...don't say "that" either.

while we're at it, don't say "these things," "those things," and probably best to stay away from "that" too.

------

to me, that's the point of testimony. you call someone and ask them what happened. they tell you, in their recollection, and then you think about it and make your decision.

so if she can't say 'rape,' and i'm in the jury i'm thinking one of a couple of things '1. i know they banned the word rape, victim etc...shit, even the judge doesn't think this happened. this is just a technicality. let the guy off so i can go home, 2. why aren't they saying 'rape' here? so even she doesn't really think she was raped? just come out with it straight...this is bullshit, and a waste of my time. let the guy go.'

i think its definitely prejudicial against her case.

Hm, I don't know... I tend to agree with analog here. People are innocent until proven guilty. They are not "rapists" until proven innocent. And as most of you already know, I have been in a situation exactly like that girl's, though I did not press charges. I have always been wary of using the word "rape" to describe what happened to me (as well as calling myself a "victim") because I saw myself as having responsibility for getting into the situation, even though the guy himself was an asshole who took advantage of my vulnerability. That is as far as I will go towards saying anything conclusive about rape/victimhood in a drunken-sex case, I guess... unless there is more damning evidence at hand.

10 bucks says that the defendant's lawyer will most definitely use words like or similar to "slut", "promiscuous", "tramp", "tease", and so on. Do these words not undermine the trial as well?

If the case for the defendant is so strong, then her using "he raped me" should be of little value to the jury. I think that most people can make a reasonable judgment with the evidence provided, and that taking away wording only makes it tougher for *actual* rape victims to get justice through our court systems.

Off topic, I'm getting tired of these cases. Every other rape case is "I was too drunk to consent". Well, then stop drinking and being slutty if you can't control yourself.

On topic, I kinda agree with the judge. Rape to me would be that guy having sex with that woman even after she said no, by force. The woman was drunk and probably agreed to it. Rape would not fit in this case.

Oh sheesh, now women are being slutty by being drunk and not consenting to sex?

But that said, I think it's a little unrealistic to think that we will be able to effectively ban all words that might be prejudicial to the accused in a court case. Not to mention a nightmare to enforce and I think the workings of our courtrooms are perplexing and convoluted enough.

Don't rape shield laws prohibit the defendant from bringing in the sexual history of an alleged victim in a rape case?

The burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove his innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove his guilt. The defense should only be required to show "reasonable doubt" to win the case, the prosecutor should have to prove that he committed the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Given that this case is a "he said" "she said" case where the dispute isn't whether or not there was sexual contact between but whether or not said contact was consensual. Her getting on the stand and saying "he raped me" isn't really evidence, it's simply repeating the accusation for emotional effect. It should be more along the lines of her needing to prove that she was raped. (ie that the sex was non-consensual).

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence!

Seriously: if it's a "he said / she said" kind of trial, it's only fair that what he and she say be constrained to the factual. On some level you could say, well OBVIOUSLY she thinks she was raped, that's why we're here, after all. But to have her sit and point and utter her interpretation of events as if they were facts is prejudicial and dangerous.

Banning words is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

While on the surface, this case does sound pretty stupid, I have to admit that I'm not a part of it and therefore don't have access to all the information. It may indeed make sense as a part of this trial. The word "rape" does indeed have a social stigma that pretty much paints the accused as guilty whether they are or not. Other worlds that do this: Terrorist, child molester, deviant .....

I imagine that it's primarily a way to get both parties to be more descriptive as to the actual facts of the event, instead of just falling back to the word rape. This may prove to 1) deflate the case and make the events less dramatic, or 2) make the events more shocking.

Shouting the word rape over and over will not prove anything.

Yes, rape shield laws do protect previous sexual conduct unless it's for physical evidence (as opposed to hearsay) or the woman has a previous sexual history with the person on trial. I don't see the point of this whole thing. It sounds like the judge was worried he couldn't keep his own court room under control and went too far one way to try to compensate. Sounds like a bad judge and nothing more. I don't think many others will be following his path.

On a side note, dksuddeth, you may want to read up on what a circus trials were in the colonial era when juries had the power to find fact and law. What "legal system" they had could be changed at will by a sympathetic jury regardless of what the law was. The current system may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than letting layman juries find both fact and law.

It reminds me of the control of language in '1984', not allowed to use certain words because of the mental connotations and connections they can then infer.

Maybe a tenuous link, but yes, a ridiculous ruling.

I absolutely agree with this ruling, for the reasons analog stated. This isn't a case where you can follow your knee-jerk reaction and try to come down on the side of free speech. She can say he raped her all she wants outside the courtroom, her rights aren't being infringed.

All he's doing is guarunteeing the accused a fair trial. Otherwise, you'd be in the awkward position of:

"We the jury find the rapist guilty of raping the rape victim"

so how is that different in any other rape/sexual battery trial. are the word-other-than-victims preventing from saying that they were word-other-than-raped before the trial is completed? if it's her testimony, then i think she should be able to give it in her words. if the court determines she intentionally lied to distort meaning, then she gets found guilty of perjury. otherwise, what's the point of her testifying? why not have someone else listen to her testify, interpret it into acceptable language, and then give an emotionally fitting interpretative reading to the court? maybe with mood music and lighting? and perhaps a smashing dance score?

Because what is on trial is not what happened that night (to a degree), but whether the jury consider the sexual act itself rape.


"Safi is accused of raping Tory Bowen in 2004. He said they had consensual sex, but she said she was too drunk to agree to sex and that he knew it."

It's the job of the Jury to decide whether or not this was rape. Her just calling it rape without any sort of explanation is unfair to the defendant and doesn't support her case it all.

It's meant to stop outburts like "He raped me!" or, "Well, that night, when he raped me...", I'm sure. That just attempts to bias the jury.

Ask yourself this; if you had what seemed consensual sex with a drunk person and were later being tried for rape, what would like the jury to decide on? The person's plain emotional claims "I was raped!" or the facts of what happened that night.

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?

People who believe they were raped should be able to say so in open court and the sexual history of the accused and accusor should be admissable as well.

I think to an extent she should be able to also. But as I can understand why the judge did this, I've been trying to show he's not an idiot or completely unjustified.

I think if she used the word by explaining what happened and saying something like "That's why I was victimized and raped" that's completely ok, and frankly just trying to establish your case. However, beginning your account with "When he raped me..." or similar things is unfair. In fact, I'm sure if the words weren't banned that the defense could have that kind of wording stricken from the record if she said it (as that is what is trying to be established).

Wait, so the judge banned certain words because he thought they could potentially be used in a persuasive way?

I wonder if it causes a mistrial if she points out to the jury that the judge thinks that they're idiots.

Thank you, filtherton. You always bring things back to common sense.

Should a homocide trial ban the word "homocide" or any other synonym because the term is perjoritive? This judge needs to be kicked off the bench if he/she has an objection to the terms used in a law statute.

Sheesh...I'm thinking of the competence of Miers or Gonzales.

I would think the term "homocide" would be pejorative, because it would likely suggest the killing of homosexuals. I think you mean homicide- and no, I don't agree.

To begin with, "rape" is not the legal term for the crime in question here, whereas "homicide" is a legal term for the crime in a homicide case (also is "murder", depending on where the court is being held, I believe they're both still in use). You're comparing apples and hand grenades. And if "homicide" is no longer being used in the legal name for the crime, then it would be "murder" and yes, they could ban "homicide" (though I'm not sure anyone would bother, "murder" sounds worse in my opinion).

I'm actually happy about all this...

Rape doesnt fit here, they had consensual sex, then after the fact she said that she was not able to consent because of how much she drank.

Women who pull this kind of crap belittle women who have suffered legitimate rape.

I agree. This exact scenario happened to me when I was a senior in high school... I got drunk, got f*cked, and woke up the next morning thinking, "was that rape?"

But I chose not to press charges or do any of that stuff because really, it's not like he forced the alcohol down my throat or gave me a roofie or something. I chose to drink while hanging out with a guy who didn't have the best reputation anyway. I learned why he had such a rep. End of story.


HOWEVER, I think it's important to distinguish between someone who just got too drunk and slutted themselves out, versus someone who was legitimately drugged (via roofies or whatever) and then raped. If someone drugs you against your knowledge/will for the purposes of sleeping with you, then that's rape.

The connotation of rape being a forceful and violent thing, I have to agree with the judge on this one. It's one thing if it was a typical rape case, but here... Things lie more toward the middle. She can still say sexually assaulted.

I know of more than one female that I could claim raped me based on being too drunk to make an informed decision. This case could go either way, and a thumbs up to the judge for trying to make things fair when he had to know he was going to get flak for it.

And I must add that analog articulated his thoughts much better than I and I agree with him 100 percent.

quick question: how often do victims have their testimony...um...regulated? i know you can be restricted to yes or no questions, etc. or i think you can. but is it common to have certain words disallowed during testimony to avoid these types of complications? i'd be curious to know whether this is an exceptional measure within the legal community.

If the words 'rape' and 'victim' are banned, it can only be fair if the words 'consensual' and 'willing' are also banned.

Enough to where the state has a law in favor of it...

Except that those words are what determines whether or not it actually was rape...