LibriumArcana.Games

Note the place..

[quote]It’s the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.

She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word “rapeâ€

This is what happens when you take a good thing too far.

I do believe that for a person to have a possible defense a prosecutor must be prevented from being unnecessarily inflammatory toward him (hence why unrelated crimes are not permitted to be introduced by the prosecution). But if the charge is rape it is ludicrous for a judge to declare that the word "rape" must not be used. Such a judge is either taking the rights of the defendant to an illogical extreme, is corrupt, or is blindingly incompetent (which mixes with the first item methinks) and should probably be subjected to an investigation by the state's judicial community (whatever organization functions as the equivalent of the State Bar).

This is the most outragious thing I have read in a very long time.

/ angry beyond words of expression.

I can kind of understand why a Judge would not want the term rape thrown around during a trial by jury. The word rape carries some very serious baggage and people also tend to lose all sorts of objectivity when it gets thrown around. And it doesn't do anyone any good to throw a guy who got mistaken for the attacker, or if the attack didn't happen at all (*cough* Duke case *cough*) because people decided the person was guilty because the word "raped" was used. And yes I can see that happening.

That being said, throwing out "Sexual assault" and "assailant" is horseshit. What is she supposed to do, call it "Surprise sex"? That is blatantly padding the case in the favor of the defendant.

Charon wrote:I can kind of understand why a Judge would not want the term rape thrown around during a trial by jury. The word rape carries some very serious baggage and people also tend to lose all sorts of objectivity when it gets thrown around. And it doesn't do anyone any good to throw a guy who got mistaken for the attacker, or if the attack didn't happen at all (*cough* Duke case *cough*) because people decided the person was guilty because the word "raped" was used. And yes I can see that happening.

That being said, throwing out "Sexual assault" and "assailant" is horseshit. What is she supposed to do, call it "Surprise sex"? That is blatantly padding the case in the favor of the defendant.

That was my general thoughts too.
What kind of bullshit has the judge been drinking in the morning? Because it sure is stinking up his thinking after 8am.

I gotta admit this doesn't work for me.

This is a rape trail. Someone has been charged with rape. This means someone is claiming or more likely has been raped.

Now granted my vocabulary isn't has massive and extensive as some, but it would seem to me this situation is kinda just a bit mind tailored made for the use of the word rape.

frigidmagi wrote:I gotta admit this doesn't work for me.

This is a rape trail. Someone has been charged with rape. This means someone is claiming or more likely has been raped.

Now granted my vocabulary isn't has massive and extensive as some, but it would seem to me this situation is kinda just a bit mind tailored made for the use of the word rape.

I think there is a line being crossed as far as " fair tial" and " Right to due process" are concerned.

Psychologically speaking, the trauma and anguish of the victim is not fair nor is it right that she is being made to censor herself about her experience.

Rape is rape no matter how you word it. Sexual assault is rape, even with the fancy tap dancing words.

That's pretty much what I meant when I said the situation was tailored made for the use of the word rape.

The problem is that removing those terms, Rape and Sexual Assault, completely remove the notion that the act was forced, suddenly making the act sound consensual when she would have to describe it. Which of course makes me think that the judge for this case is horribly biased and already thinks the girl is lying...

"forced sexual congress" is the only thing I can come up with to get around the ruling. The only other way would be to spell out what happened in great detail, which most rape victims prefer not to do.

Forced sexual congress, unwanted sexual congress, forced sexual intercourse, unwanted sexual intercourse, nonconsensual sexual intercourse/conduct, surprise buttsecks, Judge this is where I'm using a word that means rape but isn't the word rape but I can't think of a word right now because of the trauma of the word that means rape but isn't rape.