Yet again in rape cases it's one rule for the defendant, another for the 'complainant'. Worse is the fact that the jury won't be told of this ban, so when they hear the woman say 'he had sex with me'*, that'll surely (if the judge is even correct) influence them as much as the word 'rape' would have, only the other way round - good grief, even I'd be thinking 'why's she not using the word if that's what happened to her?'. Like I said, one rule...
There's some interesting stuff in the article about the power of words, if you can prevent the red mist from descending long enough to read it.
* I sincerely hope she can say 'non-consensual' or 'forced'.
This was my favorite line of the linked article: "If the complaining witness in a rape trial has to describe herself as having had 'intercourse' with the defendant, should the complaining witness in a mugging be forced to testify that he was merely giving his attacker a loan?"
IMO, for the duration of the trial at least, the defendant's attorney should change his name-- which is Mock-- to "Serious."
Posts: 2605 | Location: As they say at 101.5FM: Not New York... Not Philadelphia... PROUD TO BE NEW JERSEY!
I don't know whether to scream or weep.
