Now
Partly Cloudy
80.0°
High
82°
Low
62°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Group to protest ban on word 'rape' in sex assault trial

Comments 24 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By CLARENCE MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star

Saturday, Jul 07, 2007 - 08:33:43 pm CDT

Jury selection was scheduled to begin Monday in the trial of a Lincoln man charged with sexually assaulting a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student in 2004.

The trial of Pamir Safi, 33, in Lancaster County District Court is scheduled to take about 10 days. If convicted, Safi faces up to 50 years in prison.

Authorities arrested Safi in 2004 after a 21-year-old student reported he had sexually assaulted her at his apartment.

Story Photo
Pamir J. Safi

Related Media

Survivor free speech silent vigil

Demonstrators marched from the court house to Brother's bar and back to protest a judges decision to not allow certain words to be used in the tri...

Comments: 0
Rated:

Safi did not deny the two had sex, but he said it was consensual. The Lancaster County Attorney’s Office alleged Safi knew the woman was too intoxicated to give consent. Safi and the woman were strangers when they met at a downtown Lincoln bar Oct. 30, 2004. The two left the bar after closing and went to Safi’s apartment in his vehicle.

The case has drawn national attention, especially after Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront said he would bar witnesses from using words like “rape” and “sexual assault kit” at the trial.

Tory Bowen, the woman Safi is accused of sexually assaulting, has criticized the ban, contending it would force her to use the word, “sex” rather than “rape” to describe her encounter with Safi.

Bowen has said the word “sex” would imply to jurors that she consented to have sex with Safi.

A Chicago-based organization, Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment, or PAVE, plans to conduct a silent protest against the ban Monday outside the County-City Building.

The protesters were expected to hold placards with the banned words.

“We’re not trying to sway the jury,” said PAVE founder and executive director Angela Rose. “For her (Bowen) to not be able to say what happened to her is absolutely absurd.”

Rose said in an interview Saturday that Cheuvront’s ruling was part of a deeper problem: the re-victimization of sex assault victims by the criminal justice system.

Safi’s attorney, Clarence Mock, said he doubted PAVE’s stated motives for the rally.

“I think this has nothing to do with Cheuvront’s ruling,” he said. “I think they’re trying to influence the jury. I think it’s completely reprehensible and unfair.”

Safi’s right to a fair trial could be compromised, Mock said, if many people attend the rally, and depending on their actions and the wording on the placards.

“If they do what they say they’re going to do, it would be an issue,” he said.

Reach Clarence Mabin at cmabin@journalstar.com or 473-7234.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Eric wrote on July 7, 2007 8:57 pm:
" Im thinking this judge needs to be removed from the bench. When his retainment vote coming? "
bizarre wrote on July 8, 2007 12:43 am:
" The woman is claiming she was raped and she's not allowed to use that word in court?? "
unreal wrote on July 8, 2007 1:56 am:
" This judge should be removed from the bench immediately. I can't believe he would bar the word rape from a RAPE trial! I feel sorry for the victim who is just being victimized again by a judge! "
smith wrote on July 8, 2007 2:53 am:
" no means no, it is what it is... "
What A Load.......... wrote on July 8, 2007 5:12 am:
" The witness/victim should be allowed to say whatever they feel is the RIGHT thing to say. To have yet ANOTHER bleeding heart group step in and try and decide what should be said in court is just a HUGE load of garbage. Did this happen to any of them?? Probably not. Just like the anti-death-penalty advocates they probably have never had anything like this happen to any of them. Go whine somewhere else and quit trying to make people change everything to try and make your group happy. What's next???? A person won't be able to use the word "Murder" and have to change that to "Leave before your time"???? "
bill w wrote on July 8, 2007 9:17 am:
" lets ban these as well: At murder trials, no use of dead, death, murder, manslaughter or any other variation. At burglary trials, lets call it "redistribution of wealth" rather than burglary or theft. Arson trials should no longer mention things like fire or burn. Drug cases should no longer mention narcotics, cooking, or distribution. Yep, that all makes just as much sense. "
Confused wrote on July 8, 2007 10:04 am:
" I have to wonder if the Judge would allow the use of the words, "murder weapon", in a murder trial. I have to wonder if the Judge would allow the use of the word, "arson", in an arson trial. I have to wonder if the Judge would allow the use of the word, "speeding", in a speeding trial. I guess, I'm still a little confused. . . "
Amanda wrote on July 8, 2007 10:22 am:
" Yeah I have a feeling if he doesn't let her use rape on the bench he'll be a goner b/c so many will protest. "
Dunno wrote on July 8, 2007 12:19 pm:
" I can see the judge's point. He is not guilty of anything until a non-prejudiced jury says he is guilty. As much as you other posters have judged him as guilty (yes you have - in your thinly-veild way), having a prejudiced jury only gives him an avenue for appeal. Personally, I'd like to be on this jury and hear all the facts. "
East Coast Husker wrote on July 8, 2007 2:06 pm:
" It's also important to note that this story has made national news-- and once again NE is seen as being soft on sex offenders. (Remember the case of the sexual perpetrator being "too short" to go to jail??) "
Mark wrote on July 8, 2007 2:45 pm:
" I really don't understand the fuss here. The terms "rape" and "sexual assault" are legal terms. The state is required to prove that a "rape" or "sexual assualt" occurred. A witness is supposed to tell what happened, not make legal conclusions as that is the job of the jury. Allowing a witness to use those terms has the potential to change the witness' neutral perspective. For instance, studies have shown that people perceive a car accident differently depending on whether the cars are referrd to as "colliding" with each or one "smashing into" the other. This is basically no different. The term "rape" invokes such a strong emotional reaction that it is entirely understandable that it could unfairly prejudice the jury agains the defendant. The woman can say all she needs to say by indicating that the man had intercourse with her against her will. I'm sorry to sound insensitive, but whether or not she was "raped" is not for her to decide here and allowing that word to be used is unfair. "
appalled wrote on July 8, 2007 3:03 pm:
" I'm reading a great book right now called*Organizing Silence* about how women's stories of discrimination are sequestered from the mainstream by public agencies in order not to threaten the established order. This case represents a horrible extreme of this practice. The online magazine *Slate* has written some really incisive editorials about the patriarchical bias behind this judge banning the word "rape" and the actual experience of it from the courtroom. "
BS Detector wrote on July 8, 2007 4:25 pm:
" This is not a case of "No" means "No." The accusor in this case admits drinking at a bar with the defendant, but that she was "too intoxicated" to say "Yes." There is a big difference. "
whatever wrote on July 8, 2007 4:57 pm:
" This is insane. Lincoln's elite routinely covers up the sex crimes of it's citizens. Here's another example. "
JP wrote on July 8, 2007 5:20 pm:
" Any sensible and intelligent juror in Lancaster County will be able to deduce "sex against one's will" and rape/sexual assault is the same thing. In criminal law, facts are for juries to decide not for witnesses to conclude. "
Joe wrote on July 8, 2007 5:36 pm:
" Witnesses/victims are allowed to say whatever a judge allows. Rulings to ban words is not new to our criminal justice system. The judge's ruling makes for an appeal proof verdict particularly if the defendant is convicted. Unfortunately, again, emotion clouds the big picture. "
Ralph Thomas wrote on July 8, 2007 6:54 pm:
" I don't necessarily agree with the banning of any words at any time but what this defense attorney has come up with makes perfect sense. The banned words DO draw a legal conclusion within the meaning of the statute, a conclusion the "victim/witness" is unqualified to make. (just ask any judge/attorney who is "qualified") I always say, "There is no place for truth in a court of law." "
?? wrote on July 8, 2007 7:47 pm:
" I cannot believe anyone would actually think a victim is unqualified to say/decide what happened to them?! They can't hand over the sentence, but they sure as hell know what happened, and have the right to say it. "
Nio wrote on July 8, 2007 10:21 pm:
" I honor those who take a stand and actually do something about this. If at all possible...it may be an inconvenience, but if you are local, below is the info on the raly organized by PAVE: PAVE will hold a rally at 11 a.m. Wednesday on the west steps of the State Capitol. An "Art for Awareness" rally will be at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Crescent Moon Coffee House in Lincoln's Haymarket district. I'm in CA but a big supporter of PAVE. If you're local, I hope you join them in taking a STAND! "
"Right" wrote on July 8, 2007 10:38 pm:
" ...is one of the most overused words in the English language and in American culture. In American courts, one has the "right" to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and anything else the court allows to be said. "
Yup wrote on July 9, 2007 4:07 am:
" This is another example of an activist conservative judge. It seems the conservative judges appointed by republicans are the true activist judges by ruling on emotions rather than the law. "
angry wrote on July 13, 2007 7:26 pm:
" Remove the judge, this is insane, whats next.... "
different wrote on July 14, 2007 7:55 am:
" What none of you know is this woman has tried to make this into a political thing. She was trying to influence the jury herself with her antics and the judge was trying to be fair after what she had done. This is the 2nd mistrial in this case both caused by this lady. And yes if she was raped the guy deserves everything he gets. But if you were raped go and tell your story in the court not all over the internet and media. The defendant deserves the right to a fair trial since there are 2 different stories here. She believes the accusation alone should put him in prison, and if that was the case we wouldn't need any law. "
Least we forget wrote on July 14, 2007 8:14 am:
" A man in papillion ne was found guilty of rape and spent 2 1/2 years in prison. There was no physical evidence and the doctor even said she had not been violated. This guy took her on a date and cut it short after the alleged victim turned wierd. After taking her home and leaving she claimed rape. By shear luck his lawyer found out that in several other states in a 12 year period she had been caught several times for filing a false police report claiming she was raped. For those so outraged by the victim not being able to say the word rape, which of you are equally outraged when the guy is falsely accused. So again lets look at the duke lacrosse case. falsely accused happens everyday in this country and yet no womens groups protest that. Court is for what happened and whether a crime was committed and if it was the accused. It's not a sideshow and forum for political statements. "

Ads by Yahoo!