Well folks, the liberals have gotten away with so much over the past few years that they have decided to pull out all the stops and see just how perverted and degraded they can make our system and culture.
Am I the only one here that sees the evil in this? Am I the only one that sees that we now have a horde of sick, twisted, self-destructive deviates in charge of this country? Just how much more are we going to take? How many more perversions of our way of life are we going to allow before we finally rise up and yank back control of our government and nation, and arrest all these freaks for treason? A CULT is now running the country, the government, and the media, including the courts at every level. That cult is called the Democratic Party, aka liberalism.
When a Supreme Court Judge has to recuse himself during a pornography trial because HE is one of the creators of the website (and a star in many of the vile sexual scenes it portrays), we have a serious problem in this country. Now political correctness has gone insane. The liberals are now far more concerned with protecting the rights of Rastus, the raping serial killer, than his poor, dead or mutilated victims.
We can't allow this! We can't! Something must be done, and done quick before they make it a law that all kids under ten must spend a month in faggot camp to learn "alternative lifestyles". Think it's funny? At this rate it damn well could be next. The inmates are running the asylum.....
Courts Putting Hot-Button Words on Ice
Judges are banning terms such as 'rape' and 'victim' as prejudicial to defendants
Call it the age of the Loaded Word.
A steadily increasing number of courts across the United States are prohibiting witnesses and victims from uttering certain words in front of a jury, banning everything from the words "rape" to "victim" to "crime scene."
Prosecutors and victims' rights advocates nationwide claim the courts are going too far in trying to cleanse witness testimony, all to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. Concerns and fears over language restrictions have been percolating ever since judges in Nebraska and Missouri last year banned the word "rape" during rape trials.
But that was just the tip of the iceberg, claim critics, who say courts telling witnesses what words they can and can't say is a much larger trend than they had realized. In addition to "rape," courts also have banned the terms "homicide," "drunk," "victim," "murderer," "killer" and "crime scene."
"I've gotten a flood of e-mails saying, 'Wow, you should see the number of times that this is happening in our jurisdiction,' " said Joshua Marquis, vice president of the National District Attorneys Association, who strongly objects to censoring witnesses, especially victims. "It's absurd. It's dangerous. And it's growing."
INSULTING WITNESSES?
Marquis, who is the district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore., said courts telling witnesses and victims how to tell their story insults them, as well as the intelligence of jurors.
"You have a woman who's been raped and she has to say that she had sexual intercourse with the man, rather than calling him her attacker?" Marquis said. "I think this is going 50 years back in our legal evolution."
Not quite, counter criminal defense lawyers, who argue that certain words like "victim" and "rape" and "murder" conflict with the presumption of innocence, and therefore, should be kept out of trial.
"I've had wise judges frequently order that prosecutors and witnesses not refer to certain individuals as 'victims' or locations as 'crime scenes.' Such orders are required by the presumption of innocence," said criminal defense lawyer Daniel E. Monnat of Monnat & Spurrier in Wichita, Kan.
Monnat convinced a judge to exclude the terms "victim" and "crime scene" in a pending homicide case. Kansas v. Floyd, No. 06CR17 (Stanton Co., Kan., Dist. Ct.).
Monnat said that words like "victim" and "crime scene" contradict the presumption of innocence by assuming a conclusion that a jury is supposed to arrive at on its own.
For example, there are several instances where defense lawyers are justified in trying to bar the use of the word "rape." They include: if they are claiming the act was consensual; they are claiming there was no rape at all; or they are claiming the alleged victim was under the influence of a drug, or mentally ill, and therefore confused about what really happened.
But not allowing a rape victim to say she or he was raped is "a travesty to our criminal justice system," countered James P. Fox, president of the National District Attorneys Association and district attorney in San Mateo County, Calif.
"Their testimony is censored in order to protect the presumption of innocence, and that is outrageous," Fox said. "It's an example of the pendulum swinging, I think, to the side of the defendant -- the poor defendant is presumed innocent and we're not going to give much of a concern to the victims of these crimes."
Fox added: "I'm sorry, but the presumption of innocence argument only lasts as long as there's no other evidence to the contrary."
xxxx ........ JOOM