A Lincoln, Nebraska judge prohibited the victim from using the word "rape" or "sexual assault" in front of the jury when she testified. She was also prohibited from describing herself as a victim or using the term assailant when describing the man she claimed had raped her.
The judge said that the defendant's presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumped the "victim's" right of free speech. In Jackson County Missouri a judge issued a similar order in another trial.
Ms. Bowen who appeared in the Nebraska case as a witness is appealing to the United States Supreme Court on grounds that her rights were violated.
How do we balance the right of a defendant to a fair trial against the victim's right to describe what happened to her using her own words? Why do these restrictions only appear in cases of alleged sexual assault?
Are we going to far when we claim that the right of an accused trumps the right of an accuser to state what happened using common easily understood terms?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Defendants have a constitutional right to face their accusers. Free speech rights aside, how in the world could an alleged victim accuse a defendant of rape without actually saying "He raped me."?? Yes, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in the American judicial system, and there should be safeguards against testimony that is irrelevant or overly inflammatory. However, forbidding a witness, especially an alleged victim, from actually accusing the defendant of the crime for which he/she is on trial is ridiculous.
I think that perhaps these kinds of rulings are a response to recent research into the number of wrongful convictions that occur in this country. Wrongful convictions are a travesity, to be sure, and some adjustments need to be made to help safeguard the innocent, but rulings such as this one represent an over-correction, a step too far in the opposite direction.
Post a Comment