If the procecutor and victim are creative this could be a good thing for them. Imagine insead of just saying "rape" you had to describe in detail exactly what that entailed, EVERY TIME you wanted to use the word rape. I think hearing "violent, unwanted, forced penetration" over and over would start to have an impact that the defense does not intend.

We can only hope this does not work for the defense. It only takes one dumbass judge to roll back what little justice there is for rape victims.

This seems so artibrary to me, as well as being unfair. What justification was used for banning the word? I can understand there being rules that force everyone to say things like, "Please describe the moments leading up to the alleged rape," because using 'alleged' is correct until a verdict has been rendered. More disturbing is that not only does there not seem to be a legal justification for banning the words, but that the jury should not be informed of the ban. If there is a fair reason for the words to be restricted, I can't see how this would negatively impact justice for the jury to be aprised of it. Diane, are you able to get any comment from the defendant's attorneys on the reason for the ban? That would be really interesting.
Wonder if a person would be arrested if they stood outside the court house on the first day of the trial wih a banner that said: "RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT" or "THE VICTIM HAS BEEN BANNED FROM USING THE WORD RAPE IN THIS TRIAL"? At least then, it would get into the juror's heads.

How about "He [expletive deleted] me against my will."

Paul, I haven't seen one comment from the defense attorneys, but obviously, not allowing these words to be used gives the defense a great advantage when the jury doesn't know the words have been banned. And it seems to have been effective the first time around, with a hung jury.

Liberalism believes in giving all the breaks to the defendant. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Gayle,
Im about as liberal a person as there could be and I dont believe in giving all the breaks to the defendant. Your statement is just wrong in several ways.

Paul,
It would be in the jurors minds for only the 15 minutes it would take for the defense to get a mistrial declared. If the judge is SO very hostile to the charge of rape and to victims Im quite sure he would end the trial for such a banner.

I am shock – SHOCKED – that the liberal MotherJones would not stand up for the rights of the accused. This is another obvious attempt by the police state to railroad the innocent. You should be ashamed of yourselves. How many innocents will be thrown into the oppressive jail system before you understand that most (perhaps ALL) of the accused are innocence. Shame on you. Where is your guilt (and outrage). Free Paris!!

Gayle, where the f___ did you get that definition??!!?

Brian K., I'm with your first post. I like the idea of stating and restating the crime using the definition, rather than the shorthand label. In fact, the victim would probably be likely to throw in the word painful every time as well.

I wonder whether the judge would also have to do this. Perhaps, combining Brian K's post and Paul Miller's post, the judge might open with something like, "In this trial, the defendant is charged with violent, painful, unwanted, forced penetration of the alleged victim. Though there may be a word for this, I have banned myself and all others in this trial from using that particular word."

How can one get a fair trial when critical language relating to the case is forbidden?

Observe the case of Keith Henson in Riverside County, who reacted to the deaths of two young women at Scientology's armed compound north of Hemet by picketing on public property. Following a response made on a Usenet group about Tom Cruise missiles, Mr. Henson was arrested on a variety of charges, none of which actually applied, from "interfering with a church," to making terrorist threats.

Not only did the cult manage to shop around until they found a retired judge they liked, the Riverside District Attorney, Grover Trask, was influenced by a high-level Scientology attorney who urged him to jail Mr. Henson.

In his court case, the judge forbade the mention of Scientology at all, leaving Henson sounding like some anti-religious lunatic, as Scientology was certainly core to the case.

If you want to read about a serious miscarriage of justice in California, check out www.operatingthetan.com

This is a good example of why Germany views this group as a destructive cult.