Assault Prosecution of Sexual Assault Cases

Sexual assault remains a charge much embattled in our courts. Approaches to prosecuting in cases of sexual assault have been both inconsistent and generally ineffective as a true deterrent for repeat offenders. The articles evaluated here help to demonstrate that much of this difficulty is due to an inherent victim-blaming orientation within our courts.

The article by Frohmann (1991) would be somewhat groundbreaking for the field of discourse. The examination of prosecutorial accounts for reasons rejecting certain cases is used to determine the motives that typically drive the rejection of sexual assault cases by the courts. This article helps us to understand exactly why certain cases are never heard. The research design centers on reviewing these aforementioned prosecutorial accounts for evidence of a certain 'indigenous logic' that might imply prejudicial behavior in deciding upon cases. As further discussion will show, this design would be further refined in later research. For instance, the research design in the study by Spohn et al. (2001) is an assessment of already existing cases where allegations have been made by a victim against an alleged perpetrator in cases of sexual assault. The study is designed around the premise that there is a so-called 'Gateway to Justice' which is guarded by a court system's prosecutor and that this somewhat arbitrary gateway is as much responsible for determining which cases are filed and which are not. The research design would utilized the data stemming from arrests made for sexual battery in Miami, Forida in 1997 as well as qualitative data drawn from interviews with attorneys working in these cases. As Spohn et al. acknowledge, the study is inherently designed to build on the approach and findings taken and achieved in Frohmann's research.

The Frohmann text reveals that prosecutors have habitually looked to features of the victim in evaluating cases, as shown by their various accounts. According to Frohmann, "a central feature of these accounts is discrediting the victim's rape allegations with the techniques of finding discrepancies in the victim's story and assuming ulterior motives for reporting the assault." (Frohmann, p. 21)
These assumptions would be carried over into the findings by Spohn et al. A decade later. To the point, the core findings which drive the research by Spohn et al. concern the various factors and conditions which enter the decision to bring charges against one accused of sexual assault. At the resolution of their study, Spohn et al. yield the rather disturbing finding that, in fact, "prosecutors' charging decisions are guided by a set of 'focal concerns' that revolve around reducing uncertainty and securing convictions and that incorporate beliefs about real rapes and legitimate victims." (p. 206)

These 'focal concerns' are important as prosecutors evaluate the validity of a case and, in an 'innocent-until-proven-guilty' context, this seems only appropriate in one respect. Indeed, according to the researchers, the vast majority of those cases which do not reach courts yield evidence of dishonesty, deception, a lack of cooperation or a lack of adherence to formal charging requirements. However, as a counterpoint, there is a considerable cultural risk in taking this approach, which may be interpreted to some degree as levying a greater burden on the victim than on the alleged perpetrator. Even in the context of…