NEWS: Don't Get Raped

CULTURE: Don't Get Raped

It's not like we didn't already know that no one really wants to press rape charges, because the trial's gonna suck. But the recent spate of appalling stories about judges and lawyers in rape trials, and what kinds of things happen in order to be "impartial" and "fair" to the accused, just keeps getting better and better. Now we've got a Nebraska judge banning the word "rape" because using it will prejudice the jury.

So, ladies. If you're raped (oops, I mean forced to "have sex with") someone, hospitals can deny you emergency contraception--even if they're required to provide it by law, in some cases--and of course pharmacists can always refuse to fill prescriptions, if you find a doc who'll write one. If you get past that hurdle, you'll have to deal with whether or not DAs will prosecute; what the defense attorney will be clever enough to accuse you off; and what the judge will (and won't) allow in his courtroom.

So just don't get raped. In case, you know, you were planning to.

Bitch_PhD wants everyone to know officially that "don't get raped" is one of the most offensive sentences she's ever uttered, and should be read as if it were crusted in salt.

Well damn... there go my plans for the evening. Thank god Grey's Anatomy is on!!

This story is so absurd I almost can't believe it. What a revolting ruling.

By the way, the Planned Parenthood link seems to be broken.

To be honest, I just got finished jury duty for a huge date-rape trial a week and a half ago, and using the word rape did give the wrong idea to most of the jury, because they couldn't seem to separate the mindset of someone who was date-raped from that of someone who violently assaulted them in an alleyway. And Pennsylvania happens to be the ONLY STATE IN THE UNION who won't allow an expert witness to explain the mentality of that kind of victim. So really, every time somebody used the word rape just made the case harder to argue on my part.

I am so ashamed for my state.

Plus it's creepy to know that the situation started in a place that I might possibly frequent.

Yeah, well, despite the way you feel, the state of mind a standard rape victim is in as compared to that of your average date-rape victim is NOT the same. No matter how much you want to say it's the same, it's really not, and the fact that most people don't know know or want to admit that is exactly why it's hard to convince people that a date-rape victim didn't consent to the rape.

Brilliant move. Next we need to work on banning the word "murdered" at trials and replace it with "forced to have their life ended."

nonconsensual sex is horrible, regardless of circumstance. that is the definition of rape, not "nonconsensual sex in a dark alley with a stranger."

clearly if the victim is otherwise brutalized, it could be a worse experience, but that's a completely separate issue.

i galls me to no end to hear men laboring under the delusion that if the victim knows the assailant (and maybe even, until that point, liked him), that the act of rape is somehow less traumatizing, disgusting and horrific.

I think you're all misunderstanding what StarBelliedBoy means.

But the point is the mindset of a date rape victim and an alleyway assault rape victim shouldn't have to be separated in a court. Legally the two acts should both be treated as equally criminal and equally deserving of punishment.

Judging from experience, in my trial all seven of the women involved claimed to have been under the influence, either they got drunk or were drugged, but most of them said they liked the guy, and some of them said it was possible that they agreed to have sex with the guy. So they felt that it was their fault and didn't report it for years, until the FBI contacted them. Lots of women feel like they should've known better than to go on a date with the guy that assaulted them, should've known better than to have too many drinks, so they feel that they're at least responsible in part for what happened to them. That's not the same as somebody who gets attacked at random. I really don't know why it's so hard for anybody to understand that somebody might feel that way.


I'm not saying they weren't raped, I'm not saying they did ANYTHING WRONG, all I'm saying is you do a disservice to a date-rape trial when you constantly throw the word rape around. That's a word that very few people can have a rational reaction to, and in that type of case, it's detrimental.

There's lots of different charges that fall under rape and the ones that usually apply are generally not the same for the two different situations. Apples and oranges.

Stay classy Nebraska

In defense of what I *think* StarBelliedBoy's point was, there *are* certainly confusing aspects as to what makes something legally considered rape, and in the case of date-rape, it may be hard to determine whether or not the person in question was actually raped, particularly if she can't remember what happened. Perhaps, for instance, the girl consented to sex with someone but she later regretted it, or the person she agreed to sleep with took advantage of her in a way she did NOT consent to (ever have a dude "accidentally" try to have anal sex with you?). I'm not saying this is generally the case, or even that that was the case he was describing, but it seemed like he was just trying to point out that using the term "rape," before the situation is legally established as such, can certainly sway people's beliefs as to what really happened.

The term "rape" is obviously a loaded one, judging by people's reactions so far. I don't think that banning it in a courtroom is going to help women get their rapists convicted, but I wouldn't say that the move makes no sense. If it's about giving people a fair trial, then inflammatory words should not be used. Rape is a highly inflammatory word. But I still think BitchPhD makes a valid point, which is that it's hard enough to get rapists convicted, so why the hell are they focusing on STILL MORE ways of letting rapists get away with their crimes?

OK just a second here. Have you been date raped sir? Then how could you possible testify to the state of mind a person is in when it happens to them? I think the reason people don't associate the two "different" kinds of rape is because one is a surprise attack by a complete stranger the other is a surprise attack by an acquaintance. Even if a girl knows her assailant it makes it no less surprising, scary, threatening, and life changing. Rape is Rape in all the definitions I just looked up not a single one required a scarry alleyway nor did it say rape is an unwanted sexual attack by a stranger.

Who gives a fuck what the state of mind of the victim is? That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that they were RAPED!!!!

How many times have you been raped? Just because you are a guy don't think it can't happen to you. If it did and it was by someone you knew do YOU think that your "State of Mind" would anything to do with the fact that forced entry at ANY TIME is dead wrong? The victims are just that...victims.

It is the "State of Mind" of people who rape that needs to be in question!

That is EXACTLY what happened in my trial. Basically, most of the jury tended to think "they agreed to go out with him and got drunk and passed out, they probably wanted to have sex with him anyway." Out of 36 charges brought down on the guy by 7 different women, all I could get was two measly counts of sexual assault. None of the jurors could understand why they didn't call the police immediately nor went to a hospital. Because that rarely happens with date-rape. That all could have been explained if they could've brought in a psychologist or a rape counselor, but our state laws prohibit that kind of witness in this specific type of trial.

You're assuming he hasn't been raped.

so what are people charged with in nebraska if you can't say "rape" in court? ...i guess you can't bring up the charge of....RAPE!?! wtf

None. Knock on wood.

how about you?

What the fuck?

I think people are really misunderstanding StarBellied Boy's point.

Also, this is an incredibly complicated and (obviously) sensitive subject. And for some people, personal. It's very hard to discuss it at ALL without somebody getting upset. Let's try not to get upset unless we have to.

Finally, and this is going to be unpopular, but it's unrealistic to see rape accusations as a purely black and white situation. It's a crime that is HELL to prosecute, hell to report, hell to get a conviction....it's fucking complicated. Yes, and awful and disgusting and a fuck of a lot of other things.

To make matters worse, the law continues to muddy the waters in its attempts to clarify, as this article points out. But I mean, in many states I believe you CANNOT give legal consent if you are intoxicated. From a pragmatic standpoint, that's ridiculous. And complicated, right? Right.

"Date Rape" as a crime is prosecuted differently, AS IT SHOULD BE, especially if we want rapists put behind bars, because the circumstances of the crime are typically different. THAT'S what I thought StarBelliedBoy was saying, but maybe I was wrong.