Capdiamont\’s Weblog

ER: The non-crime crime, “rape” not allowed.
Sunday 6 Jul 2008, 07:09
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

If it isn’t hard enough getting justice in a court, you are no longer allowed to say rape, victim, crime scene because it might prejudice the jury.

IE if you get raped many courts will no longer allow you to say this person raped me, unwanted attention is allowed. Think of it, Gunderson gave unwanted attention to his wife. Phooey.

So this means we have made it even harder on the victims of crime such as rape. A very emotional hardship is endured by everyone who was raped, just to make it to the court, then in the court, many personal questions. All we keep doing it making it so less victims report crime, giving a free pass to criminals. Sad.

In Wichita, Kan., not long ago, a defense attorney persuaded a judge that the use of such words as “victim” and “crime scene” would prejudice the jury against his client, a man charged with homicide.

Welcome to Political Correctness in the U.S. court system. It’s spreading. Judges in Missouri and Nebraska recently banned the use of the word “rape” in rape trials. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is pushing this trend. It takes the position that it is up to a jury decide whether a murder or rape has occurred, never mind that the defendant has been accused of said crime. In any case, it has always been the jury’s responsibility to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

The criminal defense lawyers favor “incident” instead of “crime,” “fatality” instead of “homicide,” and “complaining witness” instead of “victim.” This euphemistic nonsense may have reached its nadir in the Nebraska case in which a woman was told she could not use the word “rape” in the trial of a man accused of raping her.

How else should she describe it? “Unwanted attention?” She is appealing the prohibition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National District Attorneys’ Association argues that limiting the use of commonly understood words and replacing them with prudish synonyms runs the risk of tangling jurors up in legal jargon. David LaBahn, of the NDAA, told the Washington Times: “If somebody was injured or aggrieved, they are a victim. It is (a matter of) properly identifying the parties.”

He noted that the California Supreme Court has been a leader in “neutering” the use of words in trials. In a world with ample confusion and obfuscation, what is needed is more clarity, not less.


1 Comment

It is INSANE, isn’t it?

Comment by Rose

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: