Judge Bans Use of “Rape” in Court Room
Just to clarify the title: an American judge has ordered a woman who claims she was raped by the suspect in a criminal case from using the word ‘rape’ to describe what happened (according) to her. The judge argues that the word is highly inflammatory and can, as such, make a big emotional impression on the jury, which may influence the jury’s views.
When the prosecutor argued that the woman’s right of freedom of speech should be considered more important than anything else, the judge said that in a trial, the freedom of speech should not be considered more important than the defendant’s right to be held innocent until proven guilty… and his right to a fair trial.
Although I understand it that people may have strong feelings about this issue, I think that the decision of the judge is correct. If America had a system in which judges decided, and not juries (amateurs in other words), the situation might have been different. But, as it is, the precautions are, if not necessary, then at least understandable.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I have to totally disagree, sorry. What’s next? Witnesses not being able to say that someone "murdered" their son in front of them? Child victims not being able to say they were abused, or molested? The defendent is being allowed to say it was consensual, and she isn’t being allowed to say she was raped, or even "sexually assaulted".
Rape is an emotionally charged word because it is a terrible crime. It has a meaning; non-consensual sex. An accuser should be allowed to use words that appropriately describe what they claim has happened to them, and the defendent should be equally free to defend themselves saying what THEY think happened.
Are we a free people, a nation of laws based on the Constitution of the United States, or are we a nation of serfs who owe our allegance to jurists in black robes? It does not speak well of a free republic when judges ignore the Constitution to create their own personal version of the law.