Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers'

Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2011-02-08 02:09

Article here. Excerpt:

'WASHINGTON -- A Republican state legislator in Georgia doesn't like the term rape "victim." In fact, he has introduced a bill mandating that state criminal codes refer to these people as, simply, "accusers" -- until there's a conviction in the matter.

According to the legislation introduced by state Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta):

To amend Titles 16 and 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal law and criminal procedure, respectively, so as to change the term "victim" to the term "accuser" in the context of a number of statutes making reference to circumstances where there has not yet been a criminal conviction; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.'

Predictably, the tone of the article is very much against the idea, despite the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. Said before, said again: Men are guilty even when proven innocent.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

This idea makes a lot of sense to me.

But, of course, I'm a man.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Tue, 2011-02-08 03:53

Bobby Franklin's idea of should be applied to domestic violence allegations too. It is a sound legal idea. Having been brought to the MRA movement because of a false DV accuser and experiencing what true civil liberty violations feel like, it makes sense. The assumption of guilt and victimhood without evidence is the issue of our modern times and all good people should take a stand against the removal of due process from our legal system.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by liberty on Tue, 2011-02-08 14:49

I'm a little conflicted on this one. While I agree taking the term victim out of the courtroom of an accused (attacker) will help remove the emotional extortion placed on the judge and jury, I don't think denying the victim an acknowledgement of their assault is reasonable ether, until they are proven guilty of lying. My biggest problem with this is that calling the accuser a victim in no way states it is the accused that did it. A person can actually be assaulted (AKA a victim) and the accused not be the one who did it. But I don't have a solution, other then for the change to ONLY apply in the courtroom, where it is not the victimization on trial, but the accusation.

Plus, it should only apply to certain uses of victim. A murder victim is not an accuser, they are dead, clearly a victim of something..

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kratch on Sun, 2011-02-13 21:30