In Lancaster a judge has just ruled that certain words are not to be used in the rape case of vistim, Terry Bowen. but it is not the news that she is accusing a man of the rape that is to peculiar. But instead the judge has limited Terry Bowen's and everyone else's right to free speech in the courtroom. Words such as "victim," "assailant," or "rape" shall not be used in the case. the reason behind it is so tha the jury does not hear such juicy words and lean towards one side from the beginning.
http://www.cnn.com/LAW/ (video, under 'Rape censored in rape trial'
I myself find it quite odd that the word rape itself cannot be used in a RAPE trial. But at the very same time I can see where the judge is coming from in the sense that the word "rape" is very powerful and could easily sway many jurers. But at the same time I believe it should be used because of how extreme the case is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I actually agree with the judge in this case, it is not really limiting freedom of speech since they can use less powerful substitutes in place of the restricted words and I feel that words, especially strong ones such as "rape", have a very strong effect on a person's opinion.
I kind of agree with the judge because those words could make the jury feel sympathetic for one side and dislike the other. at the same time i dont because it is a rape trial and thats really strange.
I go both ways in this case. "Rape" is a very strong word and it may have a very big effect on someones opinion on the case, but not usign the word "rape" in a rape trial seems a little odd to me, how woud you refer to what happened?
i agree with the judge because it is a rape case and judge can rule certain words.
I think that the judge isn't limiting the right to free speech, he's just regulating the court room by not letting the word rape or victim be used because it can have a certain amount of influence in the decisions of the jury and the judge.
Post a Comment