(Hat tip to the invaluable Echidne.)
A Lincoln, Nebraska judge handed down an order that the 21-year-old university student whose experience included being given drugs and having sex against her will could not call what happened to her rape, describe herself as a victim, refer to the man who drugged and had sex with her against her will as a rapist, or refer to the incident as a sexual assault.
This judge is not alone, and rulings like this are a trend in the nation's courtrooms.
Still, not all judges or law professors agree with the order:
Although he dismissed her suit, a federal judge said he doubted a jury would be swayed by a woman using the word “rape” instead of some “tortured equivalent.”
“For the life of me, I do not understand why a judge would tell an alleged rape victim that she cannot say she was raped when she testifies in a trial about rape,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf.
Wendy J. Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law in Boston, is representing [rape survivor Tory] Bowen. She said the practice is “absolutely” unconstitutional.
“There’s no law anywhere that allows courts to issue these kinds of orders against private citizens,” Murphy said. “That doesn’t mean judges aren’t doing it.”
Prosecutors may object, but rarely do they have the time and resources to stop a trial midstream to appeal, she said.
How far are we from Sharia?
One step closer.
- Sarah's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Jackson County, Kansas, Senior Judge Gene Martin - Fuckwit
Because it is only right and proper to name names.
This is the fool who thinks that describing being raped as “rape” is too inflammatory. Sort of, one might guess, like requiring a bank teller testifying about a robbery at gunpoint to describe the act it self as an “unauthorized withdrawal of funds.”
Fair enough.
Language is important, precision in court is admirable, and of course the rights of defendants must always be absolutely respected and preserved. The next prosecutor and defendant faced with
DipshitAssholeIdiotJudge Gene Martin and a ruling about using the word “rape” from the stand should look to the richness of the English language for direction:And so forth.
Be interesting to see if
DipshitAssholeIdiotJudge Gene Martin is more comfortable with “fuck” than he is with “rape.” If we’re lucky, the cognitive dissonance will drive him to retire.(And Kansas; OMG, Kansas. Is there not at this point more than a fair case for revoking statehood and taking the entire enterprise over as a Protectorate for the sake of the American citizens trapped within its boundaries? Either that or plow the whole state under and sow it with salt.)
Don't salt KS ... we're downwind. :( N/T
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
What you're talking about is a defense motion in limine
While I understand the purpose (to avoid prejudicing the jury) this is a dumbass application of the rule.
Typically such motions prohibit the DA from referring to the victim as the "victim" and require them to use the phrase "complaining witness."
The reason is that under the law "rape" and "victim" are conclusions rather than "factual statements.'
As a defense attorney I think such motions are a dumbass idea and a waste of time. If your case depends on what language the alleged victim uses your client is seriously fucked (and most likely guilty)
------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
Well, then, the law is a ass, ain't it?
As Mr. Bumble said and others prove.
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Often They Don't Use "Rape" in U.S. News Stories These Days
I guess it has kind of a nasty ring to it, so editors seem to be moving towards saying it in other ways that don't use the word rape. Shakesville has been documenting the atrocities, see this example where the BBC reports it as rape, but the AP reports it as being forced to have sex, but never uses the word rape. Something that seems to be happening with quite a bit of frequency in the American media lately.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Shall we list other words that may be "barred" from use and
their counterpart? I think bringiton started with
robbery = unauthorized withdrawal of funds (good one :)
car theft = automotive possession realignment
selling drugs = practicing medicine w/out a license
I love this job!
Fraud = Complicated Financial Product
that was so sophisticated, even Wall Street bankers, brokers, and hedge fund managers couldn't understand the risks.
Rape is rape. Fraud is fraud.
But what do you expect from a media that lies to you every day. And, as this post makes clear, not just about politics.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt