Before a jury was even seated, a judge declared a mistrial in a sex-assault case where he had barred the words “rape” and “victim,” among others.
Cheuvront barred attorneys and witnesses from using words including “rape,” “victim,” “assailant” and “sexual-assault kit,” and ordered witnesses to sign papers saying they wouldn’t use the words. Words such as “sex” and “intercourse” were allowed.
Nebraska state law allows judges to bar words or phrases that could prejudice or mislead a jury.
Bowen, 24, was fighting the ban, arguing that it hurt her testimony because she had to pause and make sure her words wouldn’t violate the ban. She said: “I want the freedom to be able to point [to Safi] in court and say, ‘That man raped me.’ “
Anyone think this judge is the sort who sits up and worries all night about defendent’s rights versus victim’s rights? Or does he think there’s no such thing as date rape?
30–If I take you correctly, I’m talking about cases with no objective evidence and you want to say that “circumstantial evidence” and accusation should be enough for a conviction? Well, I am open to that (hesitantly) depending on the strength of the circumstantial evidence.
I suppose if the man were seen “in the area” and had no alibi==NO, seen in the area means other people are there to testify, not mere accusation, but also no objective evidence, so YES, the strength of the circumstantial evidence would have to be strong.
But since you seem to agree and disagree at the same time, what about mere accusation, no objective evidence, and no circumstantial evidence? eg==That man robbed me and hit me in the face. Man says no I did not. No scrape marks, no money, no alibi. AS A MATTER OF LAW, should conviction be possible?
>>AS A MATTER OF LAW, should conviction be possible?
The problem, Bobbo, is that people don’t cause a huge problem in society by saying somebody robbed them and hit them in the face when nothing of the sort ever happened.
On the other hand, false allegations of rape, child molestation, bogus restraining orders to keep fathers away from their children, that sort of thing happens all the time. So the first thing I think of when a woman makes a claim like that is “what’s the corroborating evidence”.
Congratulations ladies. You’ve made suspect your entire gender, when it comes to this sort of (often bullshit) charge. Mission accomplished?
31,
If you really want the main problem, lets look for it.
1. HOW many states have a CSI?
2. HOW many CSI are in a state?
3. how many of them are up to date, and not 10-15 years behind, because the STATE cant afford to educate them?
4. HOW much does it COST for a CSI? ALOT even when they arent working.
The state Im in has 1, to cover the WHOLE state.
It has to be called in to investigate, by Local police. WHICh they dont want to do, because it THEN costs the county money. LOTS of money.
They would rather Do it themselves then to call in someone ELSE…
DONt let that TV mis-guide you, and make you Think that they are ALL over and available in every location.
Thats like thinking that Education is OPEN to women in the middle east…IT AINT So.
bobbo, boyo, you’re not reading me… I say that men are often convicted with no evidence against them than the accuser’s testimony. It’s up to you to decide if you feel that comports with the necessity for the charge to be “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” For myself, as a general rule, I say “no, not good enough”. No semen? No DNA? No other witnesses? No fingerprints at the crime scene? Can the accuser positively identify her assailant by some characteristic that would otherwise be unknown to her, by f’rinstance, a scar in the defendant’s pubic area, that would be concealed by clothing, or a unique birthmark?
A situation like that involving any crime other than rape would be very unlikely to be taken to trial – my objection is that the prosecution is at an unfair advantage against the defendant when the offense charged is rape. That is simply wrong. No matter how noble one’s motives, suspending an accused’s rights to due process does not serve truth or justice, no matter how good it may make feminists feel. It violates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from the State to the defendant, which is an absolute no-no.
Taking rape accuser’s unfair advantages away would certainly result in some rapists getting off scot-free. But that is the price that must be paid to protect innocents from unmerited punishment.
34–I think I have you now. You take a “negative accusatory” tone while you are agreeing with me while not directly answering my question. So, agreement will have to be on a preponderence of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt?
I like your hypo though. How could anyone but my girlfriend and a rape victim know that I have a tatoo of Al Pacino on my little friend? Still circumstantial, but I’d convict on that. Would you?
32—You are “probably” right that more innocent folks are in jail for rape than for assault, or battery, or theft. Still, I don’t think “that” many women are falsely accusing others. Makes great TV drama. I wonder what the hard figures are? Maybe the biggest lie about rape is that women don’t come forward and name their known rapists?
#3, 5, 9….Man of Leisure….your a damn idiot. Not to mention bully, and just for good measure you caused or should have caused a mistrial. This is all based on if your even telling the truth.
Since your address isn’t a valid one, I’ll have to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions. If I knew your name I would inform the courts of your past behavior. A hung jury would have been preferable to a bullied and possibly flawed verdict.
35,
Rape is interesting..
the Odds are, they KNOW whom it is.
a friend, a boy friend, A neighbor, An EX, a Brother, a Father, and so forth…
And even if you look at the Stats for child molestation…ITS THE SAME…
Its a family, or close person TO the family.
the ones OUTSIDE of the family, generally end up DEAD. As the person has Less attachment to the person and feels no/less remorse.
WHO can they blame??
From http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger — 38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative.
10% are of men.
The old chestnut–should a husband be capable of raping his wife, or only assault and battery?
#35 – Yes, it would be interesting to know how many allegations of rape are false. That would involve definitively determining which allegations are false; sort of a catch 22 situation.
However, you might check the published study “False Rape Allegations (EJ Kanin; 1: Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92), where the author states:
“With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period were studied. These false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases (n = 109) reported during this period. ”
I don’t know about you, but 41% seems just a leeeeetle bit on the high side to be acceptable to me. Especially if you’re one of the 41 schmucks out of every 100 accused rapists who didn’t do the fucking crime!!!
#30 Lauren,
Please, I too am trying to remain civil.
Exactly as in matters of race, the self-serving lies of the widespread PC culture of professional victimhood only poisons the well for the smaller number of REAL victims, trivializing their legitimate complaints and providing ammunition and cover to those who are their real victimizers.
I understand where you are coming from on this. My fear is the overreaction. Time after time we have seen some abuses cause such overreactions that all sense of justice is destroyed. No, I don’t want to see any innocent person in jail, for ANY charge. Nor would I want to see a guilty person go free.
Rape is the most personal of any crime. The act causes humiliation, degradation, and physical and emotional trauma unlike any other crime. No one knows the true actual number of rapes committed although it is estimated that only half are reported. Too often the only evidence is the victim’s word. But rape does happen.
It is because this is such a horrible act that often special considerations must be made for the accusers. Where do we draw the line that protects the accused and yet safeguards the victim’s right to protection? This Judge, in my opinion, has drawn a fair line and it is the accuser that has crossed it.
Your comments about false rape convictions are most likely true (I don’t know for certain) and are evidence of a broken system. I don’t want 100 rapists getting off to protect that one innocent accused, but there has to be a better way.
*
Another point you brought up, though on a different tangent. The appeal process is broken. When new exculpatory evidence is produced that seriously questions major evidence at trial, a new hearing should be required. We all want to think the justice system is self correcting with its appeal process. Yet, anyone with experience quickly finds out, it doesn’t work.
*
I agree with most of your specifics. It is the generalized, “pc” conspiracy blather I have a hard time with.
#36, joshua,
You are the idiot. I don’t what rock you like to hide under, but M-of-L most likely did the right thing.
There are 6 or 12 people in a jury. If the other 4 or 10 didn’t say anything then they must have agreed with M-of-L on the facts.
Mistrial? Hardly. But nice try. The recalcitrant juror had the opportunity to report this to the Judge at any time and to change her mind even from the jury box.
And you claim to have studied Law at school? I think you might have taken one civics course in High School and now consider yourself an expert. Sheet, you’re not even qualified enough to say you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
“To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men– that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost, and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.”
–Ralph Waldo Emerson, from “Emerson on Man and God”: Peter Pauper Press, 1961
43—That must be a subset of mans thinking?—like just the positive vacuous thoughts? or with the reference to the Last Supper, thought of our loving God?
NO, the secret of life is to know in any given situation which of two rules apply regarding any other person: 1–he is just like me in this regard, 2–he’s not like me in this regard.
Learning how to correctly apply that universal dichotomy is the essence of wisdom==not the tom foolery of thinking its all one or the other. “Waldo?” Where’s Waldo?????
#35 – bobbo
“…on a preponderence of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Not sure where you’re coming from on this… ‘Preponderance of the evidence’ i.e. ‘more likely than not’ is the lower standard used in civil court. In criminal court, the standard is, and must remain, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt – and a complainant’s unsubstantiated word is a very weak vessel to uphold such a standard. It basically requires a jury of persons who are NOT professionals in detection of deception to make a judgment as to which of two people is more ‘believable’. That’s something the average American is simply not very good at, to put it mildly.
“How could anyone but my girlfriend and a rape victim know that I have a tatoo of Al Pacino on my little friend? Still circumstantial, but I’d convict on that. Would you?”
Sho ’nuff. Lock that mofo up. That’s as solid an ID as you could ask for…
“Still, I don’t think “that” many women are falsely accusing others.”
America today has record numbers of people who are dishonest or vindictive or loony or sadistic or with an unsettled grudge against a race, or a gender, or a nationality or … sometimes they’re just plain mean.
And half of them are female. This goes back to the old sexist ‘women are more virtuous than men’ canard. That ain’t so.
#38 “10% (of sexual assaults) are of men.”
In the gen pop, that’s simply and obviously not so, so that stat must include the prison pop as well. And if that is the case, the number is actually probably significantly higher than that. Prison rape is something that is long, l o n g overdue for a sweeping crackdown. But try and gin up sympathy for prison inmates – the public pictures prisons as full of gun-toting violent desperadoes, but the reality is there’re shitloads of ordinary people in there too, thanks to the War On Drugs. And these ordinary guys are disproportionally victims of prison rape, for the simple reason that they’re NOT tough street criminals who are adept at defending themselves…
#41 – Fusion
“No, I don’t want to see any innocent person in jail, for ANY charge. Nor would I want to see a guilty person go free.”
Neither one is good, but our system – and unfortunately, potential jurors do not have this beaten into their heads – demands that the protection of the rights of innocent citizens be the ruling principle. One of life’s great frustrations, for me, is living in a state where the slack-jawed yayhoos who run things actually think that putting innocents away is OK, if it’s done in the course of getting as many bad guys as possible. These clowns have no more comprehension of what justice is supposed to be than my neighbor’s three-legged dog. Filthy, vicious state, full of filthy, vicious people.
And yes, the appeals process has, due to the constant abuse by relentless lawyers doing all they can to get their guilty clients off on technicalities, that vital minority of appeals which are brought by factually innocent people are usually sabotaged.
#44– you have just expressed the epitome of modern man’s predicament. You believe the mind is everything. The mind divides– it has to; that is what it was designed to do. Thus, the mind always sees in black and white. The mind differentiates. THE HEART INTEGRATES. You see, that is why there is no Love today in society because society is being led by the Mind.
If you want to understand the mind, you should see this video (see both parts before you comment further):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cHh5bLx_tfg
>>How could anyone but my girlfriend and a rape victim know that
>>I have a tatoo of Al Pacino on my little friend? Still
>>circumstantial, but I’d convict on that. Would you?
Well, being circumstantial, it would depend on the circumstances. If it was a total stranger, maybe. If it was a scorned ex-wife or ex-girlfriend who thought it would be a lot of fun to fuck over her ex-husband or ex-boyfriend by providing information she got back before she decided to fuck him over, well….maybe not.
bobbo, Kanin did two studies and he found that 41 and 50% of the women who cried rape later admitted to making it up. The actual percentage of false rape cases was therefore probably higher.
This case is a fucking joke. A woman claims she was too drunk to consent and therefore was raped. Puhleasse. Unless the man was stone cold sober, she could just as easily be accused of raping him. Why is she not being tried for rape too?
According to the article, this “victim” is out trying to taint the jury before the case even goes to trial. To this feminazi, a rape accusation and conviction (even when the judge has banned the word rape) are more important than due process.
Kudos to the judge for not falling victim to feminazi bullying.
This judge is an idiot!!!!! RAPE is what it is. I always thought speech was protected by the Constitution. What an arrogant moron. He should be removed from not only the bench, but society in general.
This is just flat out horrible. What the F is in the water in Nebraska? THIS kind of justice is a special kind of stupid, no doubt.
Hey if the girl consent to it she was not rape thats they way i look at it