Sunday, June 24, 2007

Mmmmmmm, stuff.

First, good news.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has decided to subpoena a number of the Bush Administration's documents that relate to warrantless wiretapping. So, now the SJC gets to fight with the White House for the next 18 million years trying to explain to Dubya that he is not the king and that piece of paper they keep calling the Constitution is for something other than wiping his ass.

Second, AWESOME news.

Some crazy Japanese dudes came up with a machine..... *Spooky sci-fi/mystery voice* THAT LETS YOU MOVE OBJECTS WITH YOUR MIND!! Hitachi invented a "brain-machine interface" that translates blood flow in the brain into electric signals. So far, the B-MI has been used to control a train in 2 settings: GO & STOP. Think, and the train goes forward. Stop thinking, and the train stops. But, hey! Everything needs a first step! Soon, I won't have to type, or even speak, my blogs. I'll just think, and my brain vomit will be here for you to enjoy.

And, third, some shit to make you say "What the fuck?!"

So, we all know that - here in the Midwest - we're a little crazy. वी tend to do some weird shit, and the law is no exception. Well, recently, a judge in Nebraska decided that - during a rape trial - the prosecution and their witnesses - were not allowed to use the words and phrases (wait for it...): rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, or sexual assault kit in their case.

Let's look at that again. In a jury trial. Where the defendant has been charged with rape and sexual assault. The prosecution. And, the prosecution's witnesses. Including the rape victim. Are not allowed to utter the word rape. Or, the phrase sexual assault.

What words are they supposed to use? They are allowed to refer to what happened as "sex" or "intercourse."

Why? Because "
Using words like 'rape' creates unfair prejudices for defendants and invades the (duties) of the jury."

So, when the victim... Sorry! Complainant. For those not "in the know" it is very common these days for defense attorneys to request and judgess to grant motions saying that the victim cannot be referred to as a victim, because that draws a legal conclusion and could prejudice the jury. The allegedly victimized party can only be referred to as the "complainant."

So, when the complainant is sitting on the stand, describing what happened, she can't say, "When I woke up at the defendant's house the next morning, he was raping me." She now has to say, "When I woke up at the defendant's house the next morning, he has having sex with me."

Not quite the same effect, huh?

Yes, it has an emotional impact to use these words. But, that's because these are words society has attached emotional weight to.

What's next? Murder is an emotionally charged word. Are we going to say a "complainant's" family can't use the word murder in a trial? Or, that a robbery victim can't say "robbery" on the stand?

I mean, for fuck sakes, people. The man is charged with sexual assault. What the hell fucking sense does it make to say you can't say the phrase "sexual assault" during the trial?!? What do you do during the jury instruction part of the trial? What do the jury instructions say?!?!?

"Instruction 4: Intercourse that occurred between Complainant and Defendant that may or may not have been consensual, and which we the jury are here to determine the legality of, the decision of which has not been influenced in any way by the use of even remotely emotionally charged language."

I feel bad, too, for the victim. (Fuck "complainant." If this woman was raped, she is a victim.) She's said, "
I never once would describe [what happened] as sex. He's making me commit perjury."

Do defendants deserve a fair shot? Of course. That's the beauty of our judicial system. Do we sometimes ignore the victim in the process? Yup. I want to protect the guys who get fucked over by the system. But, I also want to make sure that victims are not treated as a collateral part of the process. Victims are more than a witness and something to be overcome by the defense.

Yes, I know. It is better to see ten guilty men go free than to keep one innocent man in jail. Yes, despite all of my ranting, I truly believe that a defendant deserves a fair, just trial and all the protections afforded him by our Contitution and judiciary. But, really. Let's be reasonable.

It is poo.

I know. Sorry. This has become quite lengthy. Yes, I'm a crazy left-winger victim's rights advocate. I'm ok with it. We'll see how that works out with my likely career path of criminal defense attorney....

And, no, Ryan. This still has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Love and justice for everyone!