Weekly Crime Poll: Victim's Rights Violated?
Saturday October 25, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Nebraska case in which a judge barred all witnesses from using the word "rape" during a sexual assault trial. Judge Cheuvront also banned witnesses from using terms like "rape kit" and "victim" while testifying in the trial. Meanwhile, he allowed the defendant's attorney to use "sex" and "intercourse" to describe the incident between Safi and the victim, Tory Bowen.
During the trial, Bowen accused Safi of sexually assaulting her in October 2004 when she was too intoxicated to give consent.
Do you think the judge violated the victim's constitutional rights?
See Also:
Supreme Court Dodges 'Rape' Testimony Issue
Crime and Punishment Weekly Polls
Comments
There is not enough information here to make a good decision as to whether this persons cvil rights were violated or not. One is innocent until proven guilty. So the Judge in forbidding the use of ‘rape’ seems to be a fair decision to guarantee the rights of the defendent.
If she was so incapacitated that she could not give consent then that sheds doubts on if she really knows who she had sex with her or if she really had sex at all. The case in point here is the alledged rape case of the Duke LaCrosse team. The Defendents attorneys need to demand DNA testing which will either prove the defendents innocence of guilt. IF the DNA belongs to the defendent then the question then becomes a matter of consent and if the defendent had the knowledge to determine if someone consented or not under the influence.
The woman is at least a contributor to this situation in that she was so drunk that she had no control over her decisions. She could have consented but meant not to consent. IT is too late after an action to say “I did not consent ” when one has already said that they consented and the defendent acted upon the persons consent. Whatever the law is in this case if I were Judge—I would rule more in favor of the defendent as well as ruloe against the prosecution unless they can prove that woman refused to give consent before she was so out of it.
There is a difference between “Rape” and “Sexual Assault.” Merriam-Webster defines the term rape as, “Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.” Whereas, Sexual Assault is defined as, “Illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority.”
Therefore, since the charge is “Sexual Assault,” the witnesses should use the proper terminology.