Judge bans the word 'rape' from courtoom

[Lucky]

I think the judge was right. Think about it - what's the trial for? The trial is to decide if a crime was committed.

So in the court are they the accused and the accuser, the prosecutor and the defendant? Or are they the victim and the assailant, the rapist, the murderer? They can't be a rapist until AFTER the case is over, and then ONLY if they LOSE the case.

Otherwise you might as well just go to a police-state system, when they come in already written up as the man 'guilt of XX crime' and they get the privilege of trying to prove their innocence.


Seriously guys, the fundamentals of justice here, innocent until proven guilty.

And 1A doesn't apply to court cases indiscriminately! There are millions of situations where judges can and should say who can say what, and when. It's court for ****'s sake!



P.S.
Obxned, are you trying to tell people that if you make bad decisions it's your fault? You seriously expect to sell that 'personal responsibility' stuff, that sounds like a lot of hard work for little immediate rewards. People, THR included, want quick and easy, and the less responsibility the better.

 

[SomeKid]

I saw the woman on OReilly. Do note, I said woman and not victim. Someone earlier in the thread said she is a shrewd PC feminist, I think that poster is right. The woman should be thrown in jail, not the guy.

As for the banning, I support it. Too much emotion on that word, and it is up to the jury to decide if he actually did rape her.

 

[Titan6]

I hope all the men pulling for the guy and the banning of words feel the same way after some man has anal sex with you while you are out cold. After all it was not rape as you had it coming.

I could be wrong but you might feel a little differently about the 1A then.

 

[HUMONGO]

After all it was not rape as you had it coming

Funny, I don't remember anyone saying that. Maybe you saw this on another forum, not The High Road...




/predicts a lock a comin'

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If the man involved was drunk also, then wouldn't it be correct to say that they raped each other?

 

[budney]

Yep, I smell a lock coming.

Anyway, it's a no-win situation. If the accusation were false, it would suck for the guy to get convicted because of emotions stirred by prejudicial words like rape, rapist, etc. If the accusation were true, it would suck for the guy to get off because the victim couldn't even call herself a victim in court.

Being drunk doesn't make rape her fault--it just makes rape much harder to prove. It's also risky behavior, but that doesn't excuse rape. When the difference between "rape" and "consensual" is whether she said "no" or not, it can be extremely hard to prove that rape occurred. One more reason to be very careful.

And being a hard-core PC feminist doesn't excuse rape either. I admit that it does make me wonder whether there's some sort of agenda at work here involving false accusation--but it doesn't change the basic equation: rape is wrong, and if she can prove it the guy should fry.

If the theory is being advanced that consensual sex is automatically rape when the woman is "too drunk to consent," then I'd say that's mighty dangerous territory. Can she say she was "too upset by a recent breakup to know what she was doing"? If consent is sometimes not consent, then nobody is safe.

--Len.

 

[Risasi]

Lovely. I see my state has made the news again...


IMO the defendant should be allowed to say "rape", and cross examination should be used to clarify what this woman means by the word "rape". I still believe an average jury is full of enough common sense people that they can decide if the guy is guilty of a crime.


As for jfh and mbt2001's comments, I believe they are spot on. This whole case has been politicized, and it's turned into another "she-ra man haters" cause for the feminists to join, regardless of the facts.

 

[Titan6]

''you had it coming.''

Did I quote anyone? Nope. That was me. And like most everything I post here I meant it. Strange though, if you felt it applied to you I wonder what your thought processes are.

I'd like to go to trial for armed robbery and the victim not be able to say ''robbery'' or ''gun'' or ''armed''. They can't call themselves a victim either merely a participant in the exchange of money.

All they will be allowed to say is that someone handed me some money. Then let the jury decide. They have enough information.

 

[HUMONGO]

if you felt it applied to you I wonder what your thought processes are

What's with the personal attacks?

 

[Titan6]

The first was a personal attack on those who wish to limit freedom out of a false sense of ''fairness''. By suggesting that those who believe that words should be banned and that a person who is drunk has no rights I feel that they should share that fate. While I do not normally make personal attacks such ops disgust me.

In a way this to me is no different than the bradys who think that by banning gun ownership they will make the world of level playing field between criminals and victims. Apparently some members of the forum are much more afraid of words than guns. I sure have not seen any personal attacks on the 2A anti's on this forums no sir-ree... I guess we pick and chose who is fair game.

The second post was a clarification of the first not an actual attack.

 

[ilbob]

State law allows judges to bar words or phrases that could prejudice or mislead a jury.

This judge has taken it upon himself to decide how people will react to certain words. This is not his job and it makes one question his understanding of the peoples' rights. Very sad; he needs to take off the robe and not put it back on.

If the article is correct that state law specifically allows for such a thing, then it is indeed his job.

 

[Titan6]

Then it may be time for the SCOTUS to review the law.

 

[TX1911fan]

On one hand, this makes sense to me, as the trial is about whether it was rape or not, and a judge allowing one person to continue to say it was rape would lead the jury to believe their decision had been made already, and that it was indeed rape. The whole trial is for the purpose of determining if it was indeed rape.

However, in a court room, each side should be entitled to present their side of the facts in the manner they deem most appropriate, within the bounds of typical courtroom decorum and rules.

 

[Sav .250]

Not a good idea for a Judge to "cherry pick" words at a trial. Next up could be certain phases.
The vic needs to be able to express her thoughts in her own words.
Un-less they take the "R" word out of the enlish language, it good to go.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If she was too drunk consent, maybe he was too drunk to realize she could not consent. Or maybe since he was drunk, he couldn't consent, and was the one who was actually raped.

I don't see how you can ever sort a case like this out.

 

[209]

I want a judge like that if I should ever have to be charged with a shooting.

Don't use the words- gun, firearm, weapon, deadly force, shoot, wound, kill, etc. I'm sure I could come up with a thirty page document of prejudicial words.

 

[peacemaker45]

If two people are drunk, and perform an act more or less requiring the participation of two people, how is it at all fair that one of them should be sent to jail, and not both? This isn't saying that she was asking for it, but merely that the standards of behavior in other areas of this society do not accept drunkeness as an excuse from responsibility.

Try these situations on for size:

• But officer, I was too drunk to control the car, I'm not responsible for plowing into that tour group full of children and senior citizens!
• But officer, I was too drunk to control my temper, I'm not responsible for breaking that guy's jaw, dislocating his shoulder, and breaking five of his ribs. He looked at me funny!
• But officer, I was too drunk to control the rifle, I'm not responsible for killing my best friend. Besides, he *did* kinda look like a 12-point buck.
• Your honor, why do I have to pay child support? I wasn't responsible for impregnating her, I was drunk!
• Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I was too drunk to control my mouth, I'm not responsible for my reprehensible actions with the defendant! I said yes, and he took me seriously!

Do any of those play?

This isn't a case of forcible rape, by anyone's account. Nor is it a case of him taking advantage of her while she was unconscious. She's saying that she was not in full possession of her faculties, and therefore not competent to consent, similar to statutory rape, not old enough to be competent to consent.

If this sort of thing becomes accepted caselaw, then it sets a danged dangerous double standard. In such encounters, both parties are generally in a similar state of intoxication, and yet one is supposed to be held blameless for their decisionmaking, and the other is supposed to make decisions based not only on his own desires, her verbally and nonverbally expressed desires, but also on his psychic knowledge of what her desires would be, if she were sober? If, as this case would indicate, you can't trust her to make that distinction, how in the world can you expect it of another?

Sorry for the novel length post.

~~~Mat

PS- I've made a few poor choices under the influence of beer goggles. Does this mean that I can go back and have them charged with rape?

 

[mbt2001]

I hope all the men pulling for the guy and the banning of words feel the same way after some man has anal sex with you while you are out cold. After all it was not rape as you had it coming.

I could be wrong but you might feel a little differently about the 1A then.

First off, I have a problem with you Titan... Your comments were gross, demeaning and provocative. If I were I mod, I would ban you right now.

She was drunk. She wanted to have sex, while she was drunk and did. The next day, she saw that she did something she would not have done sober and since the law reads that if a woman can't consent, it is rape, she filed rape charges.

Being "OUT COLD", Drugged or beaten is RAPE. Drinking too much of on your own and making having a regrettable sexual encounter is not RAPE, according to the mental image of rape.

Are you telling me that we should sting the guy up for doing something that YOU might have done? That isn't justice hoss. She drank, did something stupid. That is her problem.

 

[SteveS]

This judge has taken it upon himself to decide how people will react to certain words. This is not his job and it makes one question his understanding of the peoples' rights. Very sad; he needs to take off the robe and not put it back on.

I can't speak for every state, but I would guess that they all contain some provision in the rules of evidence for a judge to not allow a statement when "its probative value is is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury." Judges also won't allow hearsay or certain kinds of evidence of prior criminal behavior. This isn't anything new and has been a part of our criminal justice system for a long time.

 

[Don Gwinn]

We were discussing the judge's order. That's all we should have discussed. I think all sides have now been heard, so I'm going to close this.

Lone Gunman has already summed it up:

I don't see how you can ever sort a case like this out.

We're not going to try, here. Maybe over at APS.