it comes in pints?

My boss has them use "alleged victim," especially in sexual assault cases where there is no medical evidence.

The word "victim" implies by definition that a crime has taken place, which sort of negates the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

"drouth" is an acceptable spelling. If you're writing in 1850, that is.

This is so effing idiotic. Seriously, I think anyone who expresses a desire to go into politics these days should be tasered and then castrated. Or maybe the other way around, I don't know.

"Drouth" is acceptable? I've never seen it.

Lisa, implying that a crime has taken place says nothing about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. That would still need to be proven.

I'm aware that there must also be proof that a crime actually occurred, but somehow I doubt that any judge would bar the use of the words "murder" or "robbery" even if they have not yet been proven. At most, one might require the word "alleged" to be wedged in there someplace.

With respect to the use of "rape" and "victim" in a sexual assault case has to do with the nature of the assault (could be nothing more than inappropriate touching, etc). Also, Lisa has a valid point.

What I don't get is his idea that by filing such a stupid lawsuit would actually help his argument that people should be able to file these kinds of suits.

It depends on the nature of the alleged crime but it seems to me that if the charge is, in fact, rape then "alleged rape" and "alleged victim" are perfectly appropriate.

What I don't get is his idea that by filing such a stupid lawsuit would actually help his argument that people should be able to file these kinds of suits

And why, if he believes anyone should be able to file suit against anyone, he should consider Bower's suit "inappropriate".

Well, I've seen "drouth" used in some really old accounts of weather conditions. Maybe it was just an uneducated person's spelling but I had the sense that it was acceptable, at least in a past time.

Whatever. My opinion stands.

It's probably a good thing I'm not God, because if I were, I'd probably start in on this guy with a few ectoparasites in his nether regions, and then move on to mysterious food intolerances that cause severe flatulence...and go from there. I mean, if he really wants to see what a "terroristic threat" would look like from God.

FWIW: drouth.

(Hey, I'm stuck at home waiting on the daggum plumber; I have nothing else to do but be pedantic.)

"Chambers said Bowen's lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters."

The suit's absurd for other reasons, but Chambers is off-base here. The suit, as far as I can tell, alleges a violation of the First Amendment: certainly sounds like a question of federal law to me. Moreover, I doubt that this specific issue would've been addressed by the Nebraska Supreme Court, as it's not something the actual parties to the criminal case (i.e., the state and the defendant) would've been likely to have raised. Therefore, you probably don't have an issue of res judicata, i.e. one court precluding itself from from re-hearing a question already previously decided by another court.

"My boss has them use "alleged victim," especially in sexual assault cases where there is no medical evidence.

The word "victim" implies by definition that a crime has taken place, which sort of negates the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing."

Ugh, don't get me started on this. My office has had huge fights with judges about exactly this issue (admittedly with some judges who go further and will only allow "complaining witness," not even "alleged victim"). The State by the very act of bringing charges isn't neutral: it's presenting an argument and, as such, ought to be allowed to use the words "victim" and "crime" without having to qualify them. The prosecution cannot itself behave with a presumption of innocence, or no charges would ever be filed against anyone ever.

Moreover, I don't know immediately offhand about Arkansas, but the Florida Constitution has express provisions relating to victim's rights, most of which assume they attach PRIOR to conviction, i.e., the right to be consulted by the State, to be present at every stage of the process, and to address the court as to sentence, each of course to the extent not inconsistent with the rights of the defendant.

"Lisa, implying that a crime has taken place says nothing about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. That would still need to be proven."

As our standard jury instruction provides, the prosecution in every criminal case needs to proves two things beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the crime was committed and 2) that the defendant was the one who committed it. Obviously the two are distinct but neither can be presumed.

I need to clarify what I said yesterday, I guess. I should have said, "My boss has them use 'alleged victim' when it is requested by the defense, especially in sexual assault cases where there is no medical evidence."

This has only happened once, maybe twice, in the eight years we've been in office. Each time it was a "he said/she said" sex-type case where there was NO other "evidence" other than the statement of the alleged victim. (Yeah, yeah, I know that's still considered evidence, but it bugs me.) So when the State has to prove not only that the defendent was the one who committed the crime, but that there was even a crime committed, it was "alleged victim."

Sorry if I didn't make sense before, or if I don't make sense now; I'm coming off a three-day migraine.