Judge’s ban on the use of the word ‘rape’ at trial reflects trend

I have read that when a man is charged with rape, and goes to trial,he starts out with a couple of strikes against him because of the unfair way the evidence is allowed to be presented,and the rape shield laws.There is evidence to suggest that as many as 40 to 50% of men convicted of rape could be innocent,because of women lying and the unfair judicial system in rape cases,and prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves by pandering the P.C.(remember the Duke rape case)And to make them look like "a good guy" These percentages seem high to me,but even if it's 10% thats still to high.Maybe in this case the judge actually wants real justice.

whatever this month's feminist's lawyers, judges and legislators say it is. hundreds of men already freed by the Innocence Project. God bless those people. and those are just men who "accidentally" had evidence saved that can now be used, thanks to science.

and now "RAPE" means... well whatever she says it means.

sounds like some judges see all this injustice and are just trying to level the field,
in some small way.

bubblegum won't fix this busted dike.

The judge has made a good call on this.
As one commentor stated, 'rape is a legal conclusion'.
Allowing the accuser to use the word prior to any conclusion being made by the jury, would be prejudicial.

Good call.

oregon dad

"Rape" is such a loaded, subjective word that when a woman testifies before a jury using it, she effectively captures the terms of the courtroom discourse. She immediately gains a huge tactical advantage in the trial because "rape" is so heavily coded with multiple emotional layers, not the least of which are a kind of cultural short-hand for female victimization and male predation.

If the judge permits a close and critical interrogation of the clinical details of the sexual encounter at issue, then the discovery process starts to violate one of feminism's sacred cows - "you can't use a woman's character and past behavior in defense of an alleged rape."

The Duke case was a prime example of this, when feminists came out of the woodwork to argue that Crystal Gail Magnum's history as a stripper and a prostitute should in no way be allowed into the court procedure as evidence against her.

Of course, feminists have a mantra that goes - "Nothing a woman does ever justifies rape."

I would probably be inclined to agree with this; however, it should be balanced by agreeing that "a woman's past behavior is pertinent when making judgments about her honesty, integrity, and character."

Rape is not a crime based on sexual behavior; rather it is based on whether consent was given. The very same sexual acts if consensual have no stigma of rape.

I always wondered why Crystal M's acceptance of money - a legal contract for services - was not immediately evidence of consent. Especially given the very blurry lines of sexual servicing in the stripper business.

To the point...Why aren't these women that are proven to be lying about being raped,ever prosecuted?The punishment should be so severe that these "bitch's might think twice before lying to put an innocent man in prison for a rape that never happened.