Wow...a judge decides to ban words like sexual assault and rape in a sexual assault case. If that makes sense than I am the Queen of England. How can a jury get the gist of the evidence if the key words are left out?
The accuser in a sexual assault case is suing a judge because he barred the word "rape" and other words from the trial. The federal court complaint filed Thursday claims Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated the accuser's First Amendment right to free speech by barring her from saying words including "rape," "victim" and "assailant" during the trial of Pamir Safi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dont know about you but how is it fair that the judge banned the words in the first place? What sense does that make? i just found this story to be very interesting and worth sharing.
I am out!
Link to article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_re_us/censored_trial;_ylt=AvFf...
To me, it's like beating around the bush. Now, people may have a hard time proving whether something is actually rape. They might just mistake it for something else. I didn't think a judge could do such a thing.
but it is our legal system at work.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
I can understand wanting to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial... but banning words is not the way to do that. This was a sexual assault case, to ban that word skews the perception of what the case is even about.
-----
~Fallon~
"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." Henry David Thoreau
-----
I don't see how a judge could do that. By him doing that, how can the get their case across to the jury so they can find the right person guilty.
"Bowen testified then for nearly 13 hours, and said the ban had a marked effect because she had to pause and make sure her words wouldn't violate the ban."
That is absolutely horrible. How can this even be conceived of as fair??? I agree. This makes no sense! And furthermore, the judge said it was to protect the accused' right to a fair trial! If he's innocent then there really shouldn't be any need to censor the accuser!
It really makes me mad how lax our system is on rapists/child molesters. This to me, is just a typical sign of that. I mean, a fair trial, sure. But a fair trial is about letting everyone tell their side of the story.