Politically correct speech comes to the court room.

[no_hypocrisy]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422274880

You're not a crime "victim". You weren't "attacked". You weren't "raped".

You're on the stand, testifying on your behalf at a criminal proceeding, and you have to find "less inflammatory" words to describe your ordeal, sorry, your "experience".

You were in the wrong place at the wrong time, had an unfortunate encounter with the defendant, and had unconsented sex with him, causing minor physical discomfort. And it bothered you it happened.

Yeah, that'll get a conviction for sure.

[varkam]

1. Here's the thing:

The change in certain jurisdictions is not to the end of making discourse in courtrooms politically correct, but rather it represents courts bending over backwards to uphold the notion of presumption of innocence. Here's a quip from the article:

"It only makes sense. You don't want the witnesses and officers of law enforcement talking as if it was a foregone conclusion, almost drumming it into the jurors' minds that a crime was committed by virtue of the fact that there is a victim," Monnat said. "I think that courts are more and more open to restricting terminology like this because of the number of wrongful convictions that have been demonstrated to have occurred in the U.S."

For my money, I can see how certain terms might be unduly prejudicial in that they carry a lot of baggage (such as rape), but as a prosecutor says at the end of the article, it does seem difficult to be able to prosecute a murder trial without uttering the word...well...murder.

[Wizard777]

5. The Homicide Unit gets by without mentioning murder all the time..

Homicide does not denote a crime. In fact if you are convicted of homicide (criminal) and sentenced to execution. Your death will be ruled a Homicide (justifiable). Homicide simply means you were killed by the hand of another.

[varkam]

10. Perhaps homicide is less of a loaded term.

Though we are talking about the courtroom and not the homicide unit.

[Wizard777]

19. The homicide unit goes to court all the time.

I don't see a problem with having lawyers use homicide instead of murder.

[Squatch]

8. A person who was raped is not a "witness" but a "victim"

and a victim has the right to accuse another of a crime and seek justice for that crime in a court of law.

Similarly, from the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, the accused is entitled ..."to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"

[varkam]

9. All true things.

But even if the word "rape" is barred that doesn't infringe upon the rights of a victim to accuse another of a crime, nor does it infringe upon the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation - the first time a defendant becomes aware of what he is charged with is not on the opening day of a trial in front of a jury.

[Squatch]

16. No, but...

"the first time" the jury "becomes aware of what he is charged with *IS* on the opening day of a trial".

Then, the State has the obligation to prove that what actually happened corresponds to the charge being levied.

[varkam]

25. True. I am sure, however, that the jury can be informed...

of the nature of the accusations without using inflammatory language. Off the top of my head, sex without consent is the equivalent of rape, just not with the emotional baggage that the term rape carries.

[anigbrowl]

12. True, but people have been known to bring false accusations against others

And falsely accusing someone else of a sex crime can permanently ruin the accusee's life, precisely because the crime is taken very seriously these days when it occurs.

[Lance_Boyle]

18. important nit to pick: ALLEGED victim, of an ALLEGED

attack by an ALLEGED perpetrator.

It's a very important word in maintaining at least the pretense of "innocent until proven guilty."

[varkam]

24. Agreed. eom

[ck4829]

2. A person is charged with rape. So not to be able to use the word is ridiculous

[meow2u3]

3. Who put those judges on the bench?

It makes me wonder if the judges themselves are criminals in robes, a la Scalia.

[rucky]

4. This totally makes sense to me.

All these words make conclusions that should be up to the jury to decide. They carry connotations that may match the events - even be an exact definition of the events, but it's the events - not the rhetoric - that should convince a jury. I can see these restrictions equally benefitting prosecutors and protecting defendents.

For example, using "intoxicated" instead of "drunk" is more credible, professional, and less prejudicial - so it benefits both the prosecution and defense.

Eyewitnesses - including the victims - should simply describe things on the stand: just the facts. Expert witnesses who are qualified to draw conclusions should have more leeway, though.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Hmm. Possibly in some cases, but not for people telling their own stories.

I can see certain situations where you might want to forbid people who examined someone claiming to have been raped from using certain words, because those words represent implicit heresay - if you refer to someone as "the victim", you're implying that you know that they really were a victim.

But I don't think people should be forbidden from using words of their own choice to refer to their own first-hand experience. There are already perjury laws in place to restrict what one can and can't say on the witness stand.

So I can see that in some cases you might want to ban saying "she was raped" - although only in exceptional circumstances, rather than as a standard policy - but I don't think you should ever ban saying "I was raped".

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I'm so sick of the victim's rights movement I could puke

Just another example of how we're losing the state as a community in favor of the individual.

People complain about the extraordinary number of people in our prisons, and attribute it to the drug war. It's also due to the awful victim's rights movement and there never-ending quest to turn our justice system (a public function) into proxy vigilantism for their private desires.

[varkam]

11. There needs to be a balance.

A system can't be so out for blood that it loses sight of justice, nor can it be so byzantine that it makes justice impossible. I think victims' rights advocates and offender rights advocates sort of balance one another out.

[MicaelS]

13. Victim's rights? Too bad...

I'm so sick of the victim's rights movement I could puke. Just another example of how we're losing the state as a community in favor of the individual.

I hate to burst your balloon but this country is based on the concept of the rights of the individual, not the community, and any community is composed of individuals. Furthermore the victims right movement did not just appear out of thin air, it was a reaction to letting violent criminals off with little more than a slap on the wrist and a few harsh words. If victims would be certain of being guaranteed justice, which means punishing the guilty swiftly and surely, then there would be little need for victims right movements. Unfortunately we have a mindset among certain politically "aware" people that there is no such thing as a truly guilty person, rather such persons are the true victim... of society. These are the people who are truly at fault for the rise of the victim's rights movement.

And I'm sick of people like yourself, who think that the community is more important than the individual, that I could puke. There are the people on both left and right who are willing to sacrifice our freedoms in a moment to the ideas of community aka "the greater good."

[musette_sf]

14. libertarian much?

enjoy your stay.

[madmusic]

21. Not libertarian, far right

He means Willie Horton and their ilk. But, but, but http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1988.html">The Horton instance was atypical of Massachusetts furlough program. In fact, it had 99.9% success rate.

[anonymous171]

15. lol libertarian.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. The justice system is a public (i.e., community) function

It is not a conduit for private desires (revenge).

In any case, you collapse the public into the private at your own peril. The same movement that erases this line in favor of victim's rights ultimately authorizes the very encroachment on your "individual liberties" that the libertarians so despise. This is why libertarianism is esse3ntially a failed and self-contradictory philosophy: it establishes as a premise the very destruction of public/private distinctions that it then criticizes as oppression. Or, as the kids on my block used to say when I was growing up: ya did it to yaself.

[MicaelS]

20. No Libertarian here

I'm not a Libertarian, (notice the capital), nor a libertarian. I'm a Populist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Populism is a discourse which supports "the people" versus "the elites". Populism may involve either a political philosophy urging social and political system changes and/or a rhetorical style, deployed by members of political or social movements competing for advantage within the existing party system.

I'm not going to quote the rest here, but it's a good article. Edwards is a Populist, as many other Democrats have been. Obama's triumph PROVES we still have a strong Populist spirit in this country. I believe in the worth of the average blue-collar American. Too many people living in large urban areas look disdainfully on the blue-collar populace, as if there is something horrible about not having a college degree.

I'm a firm believer in strict and strong controls on business at all levels. Capitalism, especially as practiced today in the US, can't be trusted. I support a Constitutional Amendment repealing Corporate Personhood. I would re-regulate the airlines and railroads. Impose single payer health care, and put strict controls on the pharmaceuticals. I would legalize, tax and regulate recreational drugs. Prohibition in this country, due to one Moral Panic after another, has always been a failure. We eliminate the great wealth involved in illegal drugs crime would fall dramatically. We could focus on the truly criminal class, i.e. those people who commit habitual violent crimes, plus quite a few robber baron capitalists while we're at it.

As far as revenge goes, punishment does not mean revenge, it means punishment. You did something wrong and you are going to suffer the consequences of your actions. In the early days of America, punishment was swift and public. Stocks and floggings, just to name a few. We had a much lower crime rate back then, too. I'm a firm believer swift, sure and public justice.

[Carnea]

22. What are you talking about... If someone mugs me there are two options

Give him a trial and sentence him with me testifying as a victim. Or shooting him in the street... Civilized folks allow the court system to handle this. Take that opportunity away and criminals will simply be shot dead rather than apprehended and brought to justice.

The problem is that as police are ignoring petty crimes and crime is inching into better neighborhoods. Residents are taking it upon themselves to apprehend anyone who looks suspicious.

[anigbrowl]

23. Of course, nobody ever gets convicted by mistake

Actually, the fact is that quite a lot of people are convicted through mistaken identity, shoddy police work, or a rush to judgment. When a crime occurs the victim certainly has an interest in pursuing justice, but that doesn't mean that the accused is devoid of rights. Your statement of 'give him a trial and sentence him' suggests that accused is guilty by definition and the the trail is but a formality. This is not how our justice system works, nor how it should work.

[Chovexani]

26. I've been asked why I never reported what happened to me.

This sort of thing would be one of the major reasons why.

[TexasObserver]

27. That's incorrect.

It's very simple.

If someone is charged with RAPE, the question the jury will be asked is if the defendant RAPED the victim. It is the province of the jury, not the witnesses or victim, to declare the event RAPE.

RAPE in a criminal trial means RAPE as defined by criminal statues and the indictment. It means a jury hears evidence from both sides, and after having done so, decides if the event described constitutes RAPE under the law.

It is for this reason that we do not allow witnesses, including victims, to say "he raped me." Their obligation is to describe the event which took place as in the following:

This is not allowed: "He raped me!"

This is allowed: "He put a knife to my throat and told me he'd kill me if I screamed. He pressed his knees down on my arms and tore my clothes off. He stuck his penis in my vagina and said "you like it, don't you?!"

The victim is free to describe accurately and in detail each act which occurred. The use of the term RAPE would be a conclusion, and that conclusion is the sole province of the jury. Not allowing witnesses to use words which go to the ultimate question before a jury has been standard procedure in courts for a long time.