Please Describe To the Jury What Happened..."Sounds Like..."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So what are they supposed to call rape? Surprise sex?

Nope... she couldn't use the word 'sex' or 'intercourse' either.

Perhaps, physically violated?

Unexpectedly penetrated?

[jundp 191]

And as Safi's lawyer, Clarence Mock, explains, the word rape is just as loaded.

Am I the only one to see the irony in this man's name? Especially considering that he's a lawyer for the defendant?

This is ridiculous. You can't use the word 'rape' at a rape trial?!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I kind of think this makes sense.

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

lets hope you never serve on a jury.

This story is just another reason to enforce castration for all sexual offenders. Lets face it - no one gives a sh*t what happens to the offenders, so cut off their bits, hook them up to a colostomy bag and send them on their way. Liberal left wing theories amount to nothing.

You'll never be selected to be on a jury with that attitude.

[britty 1]

I kind of think this makes sense.

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

lets hope you never serve on a jury.

This story is just another reason to enforce castration for all sexual offenders. Lets face it - no one gives a sh*t what happens to the offenders, so cut off their bits, hook them up to a colostomy bag and send them on their way. Liberal left wing theories amount to nothing.

You'll never be selected to be on a jury with that attitude.

I know and its a crying shame.....I could do so much good

[sparkofcreation 0]

I guess coming from a country where we've been using the term "sexual assault" in the court system, I can understand why we don't say "rape". But barring both completely? How are you supposed to define the crime otherwise?

We don't say "rape" in the US either [ETA: I mean in the legal system], at least in most places. We use "sexual assault" or in some places "sexual battery" and "sexual abuse" in some cases if the victim is a child.

I can even understand the judge barring the attorneys from using the word "rape" or even "sexual assault" since as dalegg said those are things that the jury is supposed to decide. I believe that for example, if the charge is sexual assault, you're not allowed to directly ask the victim "Did he sexually assault you?" because that would mean that if the jury believes her testimony, they've decided the case based on her say-so and not on the evidence as a whole. You can't ask a robbery victim "Did he rob you?" either; you have to ask "Did he have a weapon? Were you afraid? Did he demand money from you? Did he take money from you?" [The type of error is "calls for a conclusion." As in "Did he sexually assault you?" "Objection, calls for a conclusion." "Sustained, rephrase the question."]

But to ban a victim from describing things in her own words (which is how testimony is supposed to be) is horrible.

Edited June 30, 2007 by sparkofcreation

[jundp 191]

I kind of think this makes sense.

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

lets hope you never serve on a jury.

This story is just another reason to enforce castration for all sexual offenders. Lets face it - no one gives a sh*t what happens to the offenders, so cut off their bits, hook them up to a colostomy bag and send them on their way. Liberal left wing theories amount to nothing.

You'll never be selected to be on a jury with that attitude.

I am no psychologist, but I don't think rape or sexual assault, or suprise penetration or ... well anyway, I don't think it's about sex, so castration wouldn't do any good. It's about power and control. What do you cut off for that?

[dalegg 143]

I don't think that flies, dalegg. People are allowed to describe the crime, usually, and then the jury decides whether the evidence suffices. Witnesses are allowed to say who they thought did the murder. They don't have to avoid the words 'kill', 'terminate', 'send to his Maker.' They're allowed to introduce the detectives as from the homicide department.

Well, that's exactly what I said.

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

A witness can say- "first I saw the victim come into the room, then I saw the defendant kill him with a knife". We already know one guy killed the other, but nobody knows it's murder without knowing why it happened. We let the facts speak for themselves. On the otherhand, if a witness said he heard the defendant say he was going to "murder" the victim, then of course that should be allowed.

Likewise, a witness can say- "when I came into the room, I saw the defendant on top of the victim, who seemed to be struggling to get away". That describes what appears to be rape, so if the jury is educated on the term rape, they can draw their own conclusions amongst other evidence.

This is about describing a word by using that word to describe itself, and in the English language that is a no-no. I do have to be clear, that I am not opposed to the Judge telling the Jury that a defendant is being charged with Rape, if that is the actual charge.

Imagine you are sick at home. The principal of the school sees your little sister and asks what you are doing. Your sister says "he's at home playing hookie". That sounds bad and it might just be her opinion. What the principal needs is facts only- "he's at home", then "why?", then "I don't know". Okay, innocent until proven guilty.

Edited June 30, 2007 by dalegg

[Heracles 417]

Dam I hate defense lawyers. Well most of them. How do they live with themselves.

[William33 110]

All Bullsh!t aside, I had the unfortunate experience of serving on a jury in a rape trial in 1998.

Because I am an outspoken sort, I was elected foreman. Anyway, after 4 hours of testimony and evidence delivery, we retired to the jury room. The DA was unable to supply "slam dunk" DNA evidence, so we were left with testimony of 4 witnesses and the victim.

At the outset of deliberations, we were 9-3, in favor of conviction. Several more hours passed, and the judge stepped in to inquire if we were close to a decision. No, we said.

Several more hours passed, and to my surprise, the 3 that were originally not convinced, reversed their position.

Simultaneously, 3 others had doubts of guilt. We were again, 9-3. At the end of it, we stalemated there and it was declared a mistrial.

Later on, the DA approached me with "what happened". I gave the synopsis, in that the lack of significant evidence lost the case. At that stage, I learned that this was the second trial for this guy.

About 2 years later, I learned that he was convicted of another rape, with DNA evidence.

Guess the majority of us were right in the first instance.

Rape sucks. If I had my way, castration sentence for the absolutely guilty ones, backed by DNA evidence.

[Lansbury 19]

I kind of think this makes sense.

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

lets hope you never serve on a jury.

This story is just another reason to enforce castration for all sexual offenders. Lets face it - no one gives a sh*t what happens to the offenders, so cut off their bits, hook them up to a colostomy bag and send them on their way. Liberal left wing theories amount to nothing.

Lets hope you never serve on a jury, the guy is innocent until a jury says otherwise. Just because a woman says it is rape it doesn't mean it is.

While I think in this case the judges decision doesn't make sense lets remember it is for the alleged victim who is making the allegation to prove it, not the guy in the dock to prove he is innocent.

[Heracles 417]

Rape sucks. If I had my way, castration sentence for the absolutely guilty ones, backed by DNA evidence.

I remember seeing a case on court tv where the detectives said that there is some condition where they are simply not able to extract DNA from certain people's semen.

[dalegg 143]

Dam I hate defense lawyers. Well most of them. How do they live with themselves.

I'll bet Michael Nyphong says the same thing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I kind of think this makes sense.

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

lets hope you never serve on a jury.

This story is just another reason to enforce castration for all sexual offenders. Lets face it - no one gives a sh*t what happens to the offenders, so cut off their bits, hook them up to a colostomy bag and send them on their way. Liberal left wing theories amount to nothing.

When I read something like that - I do wonder exactly who would feel duty-bound to carry out that sentence (or for that matter who would actually 'want' to do that to someone).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All Bullsh!t aside, I had the unfortunate experience of serving on a jury in a rape trial in 1998.

Because I am an outspoken sort, I was elected foreman. Anyway, after 4 hours of testimony and evidence delivery, we retired to the jury room. The DA was unable to supply "slam dunk" DNA evidence, so we were left with testimony of 4 witnesses and the victim.

At the outset of deliberations, we were 9-3, in favor of conviction. Several more hours passed, and the judge stepped in to inquire if we were close to a decision. No, we said.

Several more hours passed, and to my surprise, the 3 that were originally not convinced, reversed their position.

Simultaneously, 3 others had doubts of guilt. We were again, 9-3. At the end of it, we stalemated there and it was declared a mistrial.

Later on, the DA approached me with "what happened". I gave the synopsis, in that the lack of significant evidence lost the case. At that stage, I learned that this was the second trial for this guy.

About 2 years later, I learned that he was convicted of another rape, with DNA evidence.

Guess the majority of us were right in the first instance.

Rape sucks. If I had my way, castration sentence for the absolutely guilty ones, backed by DNA evidence.

I was on the other side of that when I first came over. Sat in the gallery to watch a DA trying to indict a friend's teenage kid on a charge of 1st degree rape - a charge that was (very) greatly trumped up from what he had actually done.

[Caladan 19]

dalegg, I don't think you read me correctly. Or perhaps it wasn't clear. We wouldn't bar a victim of theft from saying 'the man stole' or a witness to a murder saying 'I saw him murder the guy right in front of me!' Why the hell would we prevent the rape victim from saying he forced himself on her?

If juries don't automatically convict someone because the victim said "He took my wallet" instead of "I gave him an involuntary personal loan", they can figure out that when someone testifies, that's not the same as as proof. Are they going to take 'sexual assault' out of the charges, so they aren't prejudiced by that? The victim testifying should not constitute unreasonable prejudice.

Christ. We can only conclude Nebraska doesn't care about women getting raped.

--

Only problem with saying that DNA evidence = castration is that the new defense is that it was consensual, even if the guy drugged the woman.