Assault Prosecution of Sexual Assault Cases Sexual

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.

Findings:

As to the Frohmann research, the primary finding that is of importance to us and to future studies on the subject would be that relating to the methods used by prosecutors for determining case validity. 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 the research by Spohn et al., it is difficult to determine how many legitimate cases aren't heard because of this approach. Moreover, recent public-forum debates about violence against women have particularly highlighted the semantic implications of modifying 'rape' or 'assault' with qualifiers such as 'real' or 'legitimate.' This approach may have the impact of implying that certain assault, battery or rape events aren't 'real' or 'legitimate.'

Factors Impacting Prosecutor Decisions:

A precedent is evidenced as having been set for this perspective in the research by Frohmann et al. According to this text, the factors most impacting prosecutor decisions would be based on 'typifications of rape-relevant behavior, and knowledge of the victim's personal life and criminal connections." (p. 21) In other words, the factors most impacting the decision would extend from the victim rather than the perpetrator.

Certainly, this is also the most troubling finding in the text by Spohn et al. (1991), which reports that the victim's behavior, orientation and credibility are so heavily scrutinized as determinant factors in whether to bring forward charges against an alleged perpetrator. In other words, prosecutors are unduly inclined to weigh the merits of a victim before scrutinizing the apparent actions of the perpetrator. This produces a system of victim-blaming which both prevents important charges from being brought in some cases and, worse still, which discourages other victims from brining legitimate charges forward. According to Spohn et al., the ability of a prosecutor to shape the path of justice for an alleged rape victim is singular and, problematically, is not necessarily governed by a clear and defined set of guidelines. Spohn et al. indicate that "prosecutors have wide discretion at this stage in the process; there are no legislative or judicial guidelines on charging and a decision not to file charges ordinarily is immune to review." (p.206) This denotes that we may never truly know how many fully justified charges were never translated into an effort at prosecution.

Confidence Game: