Judge bans the word rape from his courtroom.

Here's what really ticks me off. The fact is, there are allegations being made against this guy. The allegations are that he sexually assaulted, or raped, this woman. In order to present the evidence to support this allegation, they have to be able to use the words! The witness has to be able to say, "He raped me." That's the allegation! It's up to the defence, if they want to claim that it was consensual sex, to use the term "sex" or "sexual intercourse" or "lovemaking" or whatever other word might do for their point of view.

If you are alleging that someone has sexually assaulted you, then you have to be able to say that the person sexually assaulted, or raped you. That's what the whole trial is trying to determine - whether or not a rape occurred! Bowen is a witness for the prosecution who claims a rape DID occur, so of course she's going to use the word "rape". It's disallowing her testimony and her version of events to force her not to be able to say what she says it was.

This is just ridiculous. This cannot be defended, even considering the assumption of innocence. Obviously witnesses who are telling their side of the story and who are accusing the person of committing the crime are not going to assume the person's innocence. It is up to the judge and jury to assume the person's innocence, not the prosecution and the witnesses!

No, they should have used the word "rape".

No fucking wonder women don't report being raped. We haven't made many advances. This is beyond sane, and it is beyond fair. It is a horrible representation of just just how little society thinks of women, and of rape victims.

I am so damned sick of this system. It is not, does not and cannot work the way it is now.

It just floors me that a judge, who is supposed to hear both sides of the story and then decide (or help the jury decide) would not allow one side of the story to be told.

The witness's side of the story is that she was raped. The accused's side of the story is that it was consensual sex.

So, they should both be allowed to tell their story, as they see fit, and let the jury decide!

The worst part of this is that the judge, putting artificial words in this woman's mouth, is turning her into a non-credible witness, too. If the jury isn't aware of the restriction, and the woman sounds unnatural (as of course she would, being restrained from using the words that come naturally), then the jury could conclude from it that she is lying.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

And disbarred on top of it, if he's a lawyer.

quote:

---

Here's what really ticks me off. The fact is, there are allegations being made against this guy. The allegations are that he sexually assaulted, or raped, this woman. In order to present the evidence to support this allegation, they have to be able to use the words!

---

In Canada, we don't use the word rape at all. This was the product of a series of reforms supported by feminists. The reasoning at the time was that "rape" does not convey the physical, assaultive nature of the act, which, according to many such as author Lorene Clark, "has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with power".

Generally, complainants in a sexual assault trial also do not say "He sexually assaulted me".

That is because it is a legal term. It is up to the jury to decide whether the acts described amount to the legally-defined term "sexual assault".

Typically, women explain how and where they were touched. So, "he entered me by force" or "He was grabbing me and I did not consent" are the most common ways.

The "sexual" nature of sexual assault in very broadly defined. In particular, it doesn't have to be done for the purposes of sexual gratification. It becomes "sexual" assault if it impacts upon the sexual integrity of the victim. So, for example, a father who invades his daughter's physical privacy to determine if she is a virgin commits sexual assault, even though his purpose is patriarchal-proprietary.

I thought you might show up to prove me wrong, Jeff. I can see the logic in what you're saying. Are witnesses not meant to make accusations, then? If not them, then who?

This would not change all that much in terms of a trial. If a prosecutor says to the victim, "Did he rape you?" and victim says "yes" and this is all that happens in a trial...the rapist will go free every time. The prosecutor, not the victim, has to prove each element of the crime of rape. Lack of consent, penetration, force...whatever the elements happen to be in a particular jurisdiction. This can be done without using the term rape.

Stargazer, what is rape? What is rape in Texas, Nebraska, Ontario, Ohio, Illinois..etc. Are all definitions of the crime the same?

We aren't talking about the real world, we are talking about a courtroom. If this guy is guilty they should bury him under the jail. But you don't actually need to say the word rape to convict someone of rape.

Chicago you missed my point completely. And I really wish that because I advocate for change in the justice system people would stop equating me with some harsh on crime person or worse, someone who enjoys seeing innocent people go to jail. I am anything but. The justice system is fundamentally flawed, in particular when it come to sexual crimes against women and children.

My point is exactly that the courts do not deal in reality. The movers and shakers in that courtroom determine the reality for everyone else. That is my point. That is not how rape should be dealt with in court, and in fact, it's not how many many crimes should be dealt with. Period.

Is this judge that guilty of such he can not stand hearing the word 'rape'? Come on if you know this judge tell us of his sex life with you!!!

[ 12 July 2007: Message edited by: beenrapedmorethanjustavictum ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]It just floors me that a judge, who is supposed to hear both sides of the story and then decide (or help the jury decide) would not allow one side of the story to be told.[/b]

---

They can tell their story without using “legal conclusions”. The defendant should not be able to say, “She consented to having sex with me.” Instead, he should be required to describe what actual words were said and what actions took place (assuming he testifies at all).

To look at an analogy: [b][i]Murder[/b][/i].

If a husband sees his wife killed, he would be required to describe what words and actions he saw. He can’t say, “He murdered my wife.”

“Murder” requires several things in order to be proven. For example, Minnesota law, for one type of murder in the first degree, requires that the state prove all of the following:

(1) The defendant [b][i]causes[/b][/i]
(2) the [b][i]death[/b][/i]
(3) of a [b][i]human being[/b][/i]
(4) with [b][i]premeditation[/b][/i] and
(5) with [b][i]intent[/b][/i] to effect the death

(2) and (3) are usually obvious (if there’s a body). But, (1), (4), and (5) may be in dispute.

Only if the state can prove that the defendant’s conduct met all five of those elements can the death be called “murder in the first degree”.

The term “premeditation” has it’s own specific definition (which must be supported with evidence before a legal conclusion can be made that there was, in fact, “premeditation”):

In Minnesota, “premeditation” means: [b][i]“to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission”[/b][/i]

And, then, there are several degrees of murder (with their own definitions).

So…

The husband in this example can’t simply say, “He murdered my wife.” He needs to describe what happened. “He raised his gun and said, [i]‘I’ve been thinking about killing you for years because you failed me in 12th grade English. Last week, I finally decided to purchase a gun to kill you. Now, I’m going to do it.’[/i] And, then, he pulled the trigger and shot my wife six times in the chest. He ran out the door and I called 911 and my wife was dead when they got to our house.”

Then, the jury makes a legal determination based on that and other evidence as to whether or not “murder” occurred.

Obviously, it’s usually not that cut-and-dried. [url=http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=current&sect... that's true for all crimes.[/url]

Now, whether this is "the right" way to address this or not, is a separate question. If it's not, then the existing process would need to be replaced with an alternative process.

[ 12 July 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

Yes, a mistrial was declared by the judge, who blammed the victim for starting a media sensation about his banning of "words". Apparently, it was not just the word rape he banned. Also banned were: sexual assault kit, sexual assault and non-consensual sex.

The judge stated he would not have the use of and sensationalized word use that would bias the jury.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spillunk:
[b]more blame on top of more blame for the victim. some judge.[/b]

---

The more I think about this, the more I think it was done to silence even more woman about their rape.

How many woman will look at this circumstance and say: "no way am I going to have some bull shit Judge do something like this to me."

nutboy. You are barred from the feminist forum until you grab a clue. A good start will be your familiarizing yourself with policies and proceedures, and general culture of the board.

quote:

---

nutboy. You are barred from the feminist forum until you grab a clue. A good start will be your familiarizing yourself with policies and proceedures, and general culture of the board.

---

You still haven't grabbed a clue have you nutboy.

I don't appear to be barred. And I would consider it rather unreasonable to be barred just for disagreeing with people politely

Beat ya to it by mere seconds, jrose! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

I am skeptical of whether this woman could prevail in her lawsuit (judges make evidentiary rulings all the time which limit witness testimony). However, this lawsuit may have another benefit: requiring the judge to recuse himself from the third trial.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Yeah, I doubt she'll get anywhere with it, but if it does force the judge to recuse himself from the third trial, then all the better!

The only thing is - wouldn't he have set some sort of precedent by ruling against using those words in a courtroom? Does this mean that future judges for similar cases have to make the same ruling now that it's a precedent?[/b]

---

No. A trial judge sets no precedent. Other trial judges are free to follow or not follow what other trial judges do. A judge must follow precedent that is set by a [b][i]higher[/b][/i] (appellate) court.

Sorry for a bit of drift, but I think it relates.

I was listening to a report on the 'sexual assaults' at the University campus and I was thinking that just in the way it was being reported they were in effect, minimizing the crime.

The reason is, when I hear RAPE, I cringe. I actually think it's an even more brutal crime than murder in most cases, as murder doesn't leave a victim constantly reliving the event (family and friends, but not the actual victim).

But when I hear 'sexual assault' and rightly so, it can conjure up images of inappropriate touching, and other acts that are reprehensible but not as violent and destructive as a RAPE.

To the same effect, it sounds like this judge was trying to minimize the criminal act by removing words that put clear images in the minds of the jury of the brutal act.

Going with quelar's drift, this is one of the issues with the term "sexual assault". On the one hand, we (I'm speaking for all feminists now [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ) wanted a larger term than rape, that would encompass the illegality and the experience of violation of the many forms that "sexual assault" can take, including rape. One the other hand, it's true that the emotional punch that the word "rape" delivers doesn't happen for "sexual assault".

For me (now just speaking for myself) the notion of encompassing is desireable, so that all women and men understand the violation and violence that's expressed in a sexual manner takes many forms.

As women, fear of sexual assault is real, and we don't need a word or phrase to carry the "emotional" weight. Whatever the term we use, the reality remains the same.

[ 12 September 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

And to take what you've said further, Summer, it gets more and more difficult for some to understand that if this was someone she had been out on a few dates with, or her boyfriend of 6 months, or her husband of 5 years, the reality of many people "getting" that she was raped/sexually assaulted gets smaller and smaller. This includes the legal system.

And I won't even get into fathers/coaches/other family members/former Ontario premiers that are "pillars of the community" [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]