Thread: Don't Use The "R" Word

Another case of political correctness and concern over the accused's rights trampling the victim in the mud.To restrict the terminology used to describe the crime in the courtroom is a violation of the First Amendment rights of everyone in that courtroom.A certain amount of decorum is neccessary to conduct a trial but this goes too far.A pox on this judge say I.

What are they going to say in it's place?:

"Now I wish to call a witness to the stand to provide evidence on the events of the night and show that Mr Safi did "you know what" to Ms Bowen".

.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I think the Political Correctness started when they pressed charges to begin with.



Only with sex and females is the "I was too drunk to know better or I wouldn't have done it had I been sober" grounds for a rape charge.

They met at a bar, She went home with him, they had sex. She decides "Oh no, I shouldn't have done that."

You will never convince me that that is rape.

I will agree with you here on the political correctness point GG but the judge restricting the use of commonly used terms to protect the rights of the accused is going too far IMHO.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

They met at a bar, She went home with him, they had sex. She decides "Oh no, I shouldn't have done that."

You will never convince me that that is rape.

I agree with you here. Getting drunk in a bar without having a sober designated friend to oversee her drunk companions is asking for drunken consensual sex to occur. I dont think, though, that since he was charged with "rape", the word "rape" should be banned from his trial.

I gotta go with Crooks on this one...What kind of Sesame Street trial is it when the questions have to be phrased using code words?

But he wasn't charged with rape. He was charged with sexual assault. The story itself states that they had consensual sex. We dont know that this is the specific action on which he is being charged. Perhaps he groped her in the morning, she asked him to stop, and he didn't want to. She testified for 13 hours - to me this indicates that alot more than drunken copulation is at issue.

Without knowing the specific facts of the case, I can't say that the judges decision was wrong. Mr. Safi' attorney must have made a very good argument in favor of barring the language. I expect it is not merely a matter of political correctness.

You can see all around you how words bring up strong emotions in people. You can see that right here on this board. Rape is a very strong word, and if it does not fit the circumstances, then maybe it is better to restrict the jury to just the facts and not overblown rhetoric.

Found this after writing the above which has some more specifics, including:

Bowen met Safi at a Lincoln bar on Oct. 30, 2004. It is undisputed that they shared some drinks, and witnesses saw them leaving together. Bowen claims not to have left willingly and has no memory of the rest of that night. She claims to have woken up naked the next morning with Safi atop her, "having sexual intercourse with her." When she asked him to stop, he did.

And this gem, which to me is more an indictment of 'politically correct language' than what the judge has decided:

She claims, not unreasonably, that describing what happened to her as sex is almost an assault in itself.

Yes unreasonably. Entirely and unconscionably unreasonably.

A Nebraska judge bans the word rape from his courtroom. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Given what I know now about the case, I have zero sympathy for the woman. But there still may very well be much more to the case than just the above.

EDIT: Just thought to add that the judge may have granted the motion in order to deny it as grounds for appeal in the case of a conviction.

Common public attitude in this case is expressed in this Slate article.

If the complaining witness in a rape trial has to describe herself as having had "intercourse" with the defendant, should the complaining witness in a mugging be forced to testify that he was merely giving his attacker a loan?

But the overlooked issue is that the victim need only describe the events leading up to the sexual assualt for the jury to convict.

What the victim in this case wants to do is use the words "rape" and "sexually assaulted" in her testimony to describe the events. It would be the same if a witness accused someone of not only shooting them, but of shooting them illegally. The legality or illegality of the alleged crime is for the jury to decide. Therefore, the witness cannot use words to describe the alleged crime that draw a conclusion of illegality.

Once again, all she has to do it describe the act and the state to present the evidence. The jury will decide if it was sexual assault.

Nebraska Revised Statutes
Section 28-319
Sexual assault; first degree; penalty.

(1) Any person who subjects another person to sexual penetration (a) without the consent of the victim, (b) who knew or should have known that the victim was mentally or physically incapable of resisting or appraising the nature of his or her conduct, or (c) when the actor is nineteen years of age or older and the victim is at least twelve but less than sixteen years of age is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree.

(2) Sexual assault in the first degree is a Class II felony. The sentencing judge shall consider whether the actor caused serious personal injury to the victim in reaching a decision on the sentence.

(3) Any person who is found guilty of sexual assault in the first degree for a second time when the first conviction was pursuant to this section or any other state or federal law with essentially the same elements as this section shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years in prison.

Bowen met Safi at a Lincoln bar on Oct. 30, 2004. It is undisputed that they shared some drinks, and witnesses saw them leaving together. Bowen claims not to have left willingly and has no memory of the rest of that night. She claims to have woken up naked the next morning with Safi atop her, "having sexual intercourse with her." When she asked him to stop, he did.

Based on this alone (I do not have the time right now at 427am to read all the articles) I have to say that he is quite the gentleman getting off the girl when she awoke and asked him to.

While I still do not go with the act of rape (again because she left the bar with a complete stranger and I feel that if someone is willing to get so drunk that they are unable to refrain from leaving a bar and going to a strangers house, then they should hold some of the responsibility of the events) I have to question a mans morals who would be atop a woman when she was not awake or conscience having sex with her.

I think they are both dumb a$$e$ and neither should be convicted of anything other than being drunk and stupid, but I still feel that words should not be banned from the courtroom. Had she stood in court and point and say "He is a rapist" that would be one thing, but to say "I think I was raped" is quite another.