PC turned on its head
|
|
What in the world was he thinking?
“For the life of me, I do not understand why a judge would tell an alleged rape victim that she cannot say she was raped when she testifies in a trial about rape,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf.
See story: Kansas City Star
Confusion can be the only result of moral relativism. After fighting for women’s rights for decades, how many radical feminists do we hear rejoicing that women are now allowed to learn to read in Afghanistan? After fighting so that a woman would be judged socially based on her abilities rather than her body, where are the radical feminists working to stop the sexual exploitation of teen girls worldwide — and, yes — even here in the US?
Today, we hear the so called “liberal” party defending cultures that exploit and victimize women. And, we have a judge denying a rape victim justice out of concern for the rights of the accused. Political correctness is bordering on insanity in its attempt to balance all perspectives. Women’s rights, yes. But, cultures that exploit women are equal to (& perhaps superior to) those which don’t. Judge a person by her abilities, yes. But, in some cities, prostitution is a business proposition, just another type of gainful employment - even for 13 year olds who barely have pennies to rub together for their experiences. Rape is a bad idea, but we can’t let a woman prejudice a jury against the defendant by saying he raped her.
If consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, I hope the great minds of illiberal liberalism never gain ascendancy in our culture. Where would the silliness stop?
This is not a PC or a liberal v. conservative issue at all - you’ve turned this issue on its head by making an illogical intellectual leap. The concern is not that one can or can’t use a specific term. But, rather that certain terms have legal meaning in a courtroom with the jury present. In this case, using the term rape, which has a specific legal meaning in the context of our criminal justice system vice just having the victim describe the facts of what occurred usurps the role of the jury to determine whether what occurred was rape or not.
I know these cases are emotional but our justice system relies upon the principle that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty by the state through a finding of guilty by the jury. The possibly difficult point to grasp here is that it is the jury, and not the victim, that gets to decide on behalf of the state whether the elements of rape were met in order to find a defendant criminally responsible.
Ragner, I understand that. And, I understand the judge telling the lawyers not to assume facts not in evidence — but telling the alleged victim that she can’t use the word “rape” in describing what she experienced?
If your argument is correct, then every convicted rapist whose victim so described him in court didn’t get a fair trial.
If a purse snatcher is on trial, and grandma is testifying, would a judge warn her against saying, “then he stole my purse.”? Of course not, she is describing what happened (from her perspective) and it is for the jury to decide if she is credible. The judge isn’t going to make her say: “then, I found that I was no longer in possession of my handbag and I saw that it was in the hand of the defendant.” That would be as ludicrous as what occurred in this case.
I’m just explaining the way the judicial system works - and the important thing to remember is that the system is designed to protect the innocent (we have been known to make mistakes…).
It seems rather silly to say that the victim can’t use the word rape. What meaning could it possibly have to the jury other than, “That bastard forced me down, held me down, and stuck his penis in me against my will and without my consent.” All she needs say is, he held me down and raped me. I never told him we’d make love and he did it against my will.
The defendant need only take the stand and say, “That wench tricked me. I never threw her down and raped her. She told me she wanted me and I gave it to her. She told me it was great and then we went out and grabbed a bite to eat.”
What’s next? Prohibiting a witness from saying, “She grabbed my wallet, emptied out my cash, then stole it.” We all know what the word “stole” means. Yet we don’t have to prohibit a witness from saying “stole it” as well do we?
The word rape may be prejudicial but everything the prosecution uses is intended to be prejudicial. Rather, the question is, is it unfairly prejudicial.