Spring Break
Censoring victims makes them victims again
The Most You Ever Knew
Kimberly Tsao
Issue date: 11/4/08 Section: Opinion
Besides, if we strictly adhere to the law's so-called rationale, then we could say that thieves only take what they need and that murderers send the dead to a better place. Murderers are population controllers and thieves are Goodwill employees - minus the tax write-offs.
Even if you could disregard the fact that this, like all censorship, is a First Amendment violation, it's a clearly unfair legal practice.
In a 2007 Slate magazine article, Dahlia Lithwick wrote, "It's precisely because language is so powerful in a courtroom that we treat it so reverently." Reverently, yes. Justly, no.
The question of fairness should apply to both the accused and the accuser in all criminal trials.
This could be on a Snapple bottle cap: Did you know that most societies still don't understand rapes?
If they did, they would deal with rapes the same way they deal with robberies and homicides. The fact that most courts don't even give the words equal treatment speaks volumes about modern societies' outdated perception of rapes.
However, the argument for censored trials is that words, such as "rape kit," are "unfairly prejudicial to a defendant," according to the same articles.
Following that reasoning, judges should censor the defendants from saying "sex" and "intercourse" because those words are unfairly prejudicial to the victim.
"Sex" and "intercourse" imply consent, which isn't always the case and is often tricky to determine, especially if the victim was intoxicated.
That's why we have jurors - all 12 of them. They're smart enough to be registered voters, so they can certainly sift through evidence. If the judge has trust issues, then a viable alternative to censorship would be jury instruction.
Censorship is blind. It has crossed the line without even realizing it.
To the enforcers of censorship, draw a line. It doesn't need to be straight.
On behalf of Tory Bowen and other women like her, I cry, "Rape."
To the judges who rape the victims all over again, take a good look at my middle finger.
Even if you could disregard the fact that this, like all censorship, is a First Amendment violation, it's a clearly unfair legal practice.
In a 2007 Slate magazine article, Dahlia Lithwick wrote, "It's precisely because language is so powerful in a courtroom that we treat it so reverently." Reverently, yes. Justly, no.
The question of fairness should apply to both the accused and the accuser in all criminal trials.
This could be on a Snapple bottle cap: Did you know that most societies still don't understand rapes?
If they did, they would deal with rapes the same way they deal with robberies and homicides. The fact that most courts don't even give the words equal treatment speaks volumes about modern societies' outdated perception of rapes.
However, the argument for censored trials is that words, such as "rape kit," are "unfairly prejudicial to a defendant," according to the same articles.
Following that reasoning, judges should censor the defendants from saying "sex" and "intercourse" because those words are unfairly prejudicial to the victim.
"Sex" and "intercourse" imply consent, which isn't always the case and is often tricky to determine, especially if the victim was intoxicated.
That's why we have jurors - all 12 of them. They're smart enough to be registered voters, so they can certainly sift through evidence. If the judge has trust issues, then a viable alternative to censorship would be jury instruction.
Censorship is blind. It has crossed the line without even realizing it.
To the enforcers of censorship, draw a line. It doesn't need to be straight.
On behalf of Tory Bowen and other women like her, I cry, "Rape."
To the judges who rape the victims all over again, take a good look at my middle finger.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Did You Know
posted 11/04/08 @ 9:06 AM PST
I think what was done by the judge is to say the very least appalling. Rape is an act of violence nothing less and should not be censored especially in a court room. (Continued…)
ANGELA ROSE
posted 11/05/08 @ 9:16 AM PST
Thanks for writing about this crucial issue! PAVE: Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment staged a national protest "Call it Rape". In 3 business days, PAVE held a protest in nearly 40 cities across the country where participants put scarves or tape over their mouths holding signs of the words that Bowen was banned from using in court. (Continued…)
Post a Comment