http://slate.com/id/2168758
Quote:
|
Last fall, Cheuvront granted a motion by defense attorneys barring the use of the words rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, and sexual assault kit from the trial of Pamir Safi—accused of raping Tory Bowen in October 2004.
|
The logic is that the words are prejudicial, subtly implying that a crime has occurred when that, in fact, is what the trial is trying to determine.
Fair enough. But how do you discuss a rape allegation without using any of those words?
In this case, by using the word "sex". Instead of "he raped me", say "he had sex with me against my will."
Which obscures meaning *and* is arguably prejudicial in the opposite direction, by suggesting that what happened was merely sex, not rape.
Especially because the jury is not told that the words have been excluded, which could conceivably lead them to such logical conclusions as "well, they never described it as rape or sexual assault, so how can I convict someone of sexual assault?"
In a murder case, we don't pretend no one was killed; we either deny that it was intentional or that the accused is actually the one that did it. Surely juries are capable of similar distinctions in sexual assault cases.