Anna at Dakota Women has a story:
Here's a story from Omaha that has been making the rounds of the feminist blogs lately: in the trial of Pamir Safi, accused of rape, the judge has ruled that the accuser is not allowed to use the words/phrases "rape," "victim," "sexual assault kit," "attack," and "assailant." Tory Bowen is being forced to describe her encounter with Safi as "sex," which must be unbelievably difficult for her.
And Anna takes a shot at SDP over this:
I wonder why the victim is not being allowed the ability to name and speak her recollection of the experience in court. This seems so obvious to me. I want everyone to keep this in mind the next time the guys at South Dakota Politics talk about the horrors of jails full of men falsely accused of rape.
Well, I, for one, happen to agree with Anna on this score. This ridiculous exclusion of the most ordinary language from the trial must make it difficult for the prosecution to put on a case at all. This is the result of more than fifty years of Supreme Court decisions based on the dubious premise that, for a trial to be constitutional, the most heinous criminals have to have a sporting chance of getting away with it. Now I haven't witnessed a lot of trials, and maybe Todd Epp can fill us in, but isn't it the job of the defense attorney to keep piping up with "alleged rape,"? If juries can't understand the difference between an accusation and a case made, then we ought to abolish juries. So I am all with Anna on this one.
I take no position on the case itself, as presented in the Omaha World Herald, beyond saying that I understand why it resulted in a mistrial.
Recent Comments