Should a woman who claim to have been assaulted be labeled a victim or an accuser? Why?

O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)

16-5-20. Simple assault

(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

....

under a(2) is where there is grounds for mistakes in laws. Let use consider the case hudson v state 135 Ga. App. 739 (1975):

"The court erred in failing to dismiss the charge of simple assault against defendant Hudson upon the defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of the state's evidence. The assault charge was based on an accusation charging Hudson with a misdemeanor in that he did "threaten to get a gun and attempted to get a gun to stop the arrest of Barbara Mason, an act which placed Sgt. Kiney in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. This threat was without provocation." The evidence presented by the state showed that Hudson told the officers he was going into a back room to get a gun to prevent them from arresting his mother. These facts do not constitute a simple assault. The offense of simple assault is complete if there is such a demonstration of violence, coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury so as to cause the person against whom it is directed to reasonably fear that he will receive an immediate violent injury unless he retreats to secure his safety."

In the case of an assault, in order to be a victim in prong a(2) there needs to be a bit more than a mere statutory reading. Then there are other issues such as a mens rea (criminal intent). Is pounding on the threshhold of a door sufficient, is a sarcastic remark while carving up a chicken for dinner sufficient? A person may claim they were assaulted even when no assault had taken place and the use of victim would be inappropriate. But the term victim is what the state will use to drive the point, and the prosecutor has absolute immunity in his claims.

On the other hand, saying "she" is an "accusor" may also be incorrect unless she is the one who swears out a warrant. Often times cops will swear out a warrant even where the "alleged victim" does not want to press charges, then later a grand jury may formally accused or indict. The only way that "accuser" would be the proper wording is if the alleged victim swore out the warrant, or possibly where she consented the officer to swear it out on her behalf.

Neither "accuser" nor "victim" is really appropriate, and saying "alleged victim" is rather tedious as mistakes will happen. Unless using the term "victim" becomes objectionable to create a mistrial, it will likely stay, regardless as to whats in the law books, because that is the choice of language the prosecution will use to argue guilt. On the law books, however, calling an alleged victim a victim is inappropriate prima facie showing of guilty and that should change to reflect that the accused is presumed innocent.

She should be labeled as victim, just like someone who was mugged will be labeled as victim and someone who is car jacked will be labeled as victim.

She's tells the cops what happened, they investigate and then the DA presses charges. So the cops or the DA would be the accuser.

You're basing this on the mindset that most women lie about being raped, so they shouldn't be called a victim until it was proven that they're innocent of lying and someone is guilty of harming them.

If someone has physical evidence of a rape or beating, they are certainly a victim, whether or not the person who assaulted them is ever captured, tried, or convicted. The two words have nothing to do with each other. Saying that someone is a victim of a crime does not mean that the person on trial is assumed to have done it.

Think of it this way- your house is robbed and everything you own is taken. Wouldn't you consider yourself a victim? If the police catch the person who did it, the prosector would accuse them of the crime and put them up for trial.

Technically, wouldn't the state be the accuser in a criminal case since an individual can't prosecute someone?

HuffPo would claim that changing daylight savings time is indicative of the war on women if they could. Everything they see is the war on women by the right.

And yes, people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, the court of public opinion now outweighs the traditional courts.