Rape Victims and Suspects in the Criminal Justice System

Introduction

One of the lingering problems in the modern criminal justice system is how sexual assault is treated by those inside the system. Victims of sexual assault are not treated in the same manner as victims of other crimes; instead, they have traditionally received far more blame for the crime than other crime victims. Rape victims have historically been blamed for dressing too provocatively, engaging in sexually arousing behavior, or even for having had consensual sexual encounters with someone other than the assailant — all in an effort to mitigate the crime against them. Sexual assault advocates have tried to fight back against this by empowering victims, but in some instances those empowerment efforts are counterproductive in a law enforcement scenario.

Victims have not been the only ones to suffer from stereotypes in the criminal justice system: suspects have been treated unfairly as well. There is a tremendous racial dimension in rape prosecutions. Historically, this is at least partially attributable to the fact that a white woman who had consensual sex with a black man would lose her social standing. The stereotype of the sexually predatory black male continues to influence much of modern criminal justice, even if it is no longer openly acknowledged. All of these complex psychological issues are visible in the Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode "True Believers."

Synopsis of 'True Believers'

In "True Believers," a pianist named Sarah, a Caucasian woman, is raped in her apartment at gunpoint by a black man named Michael. The rape is portrayed on camera, so the audience is aware that Michael did, in fact, rape Sarah. However, Sarah showers after the attack and delays reporting the assault until the next day. At the hospital, a rape crisis worker informs Sarah that the shower will make it more difficult to prosecute the case and tells her that she does not have to prosecute the assailant — a statement that Detective Benson finds objectionable.

Benson accompanies Sarah back to her apartment. The detectives are able to identify Michael from surveillance footage in Sarah's apartment elevator, but during the investigation, Detectives Fin and Rollins apprehend other black men as suspects because of their resemblance to Michael. Sarah later encounters Michael at a bar and calls the detectives, who arrest him. Michael has marijuana and a gun on him at the time of the arrest. It is revealed that Sarah is having a romantic relationship with one of her professors and that she had a one-night stand the night before her sexual assault. Defense counsel uses those facts, as well as Sarah's friendly demeanor toward Michael in the elevator, to establish reasonable doubt, and Michael is acquitted of the sexual assault.

Psychological Treatment of the Victim

Contrary to most people's perceptions, stranger rape scenarios — like the one shown in the television episode — are not actually the most common rape scenarios. People are far more likely to be acquainted with their rapist than to be assaulted by an unknown attacker. There has been a tremendous amount of public education on this point, because many people were simply unaware of the existence of acquaintance rape. Despite this push for education, people still tend to envision a typical female rape along the lines of the stranger rape stereotype (Anderson, 2007).

Sarah's rape in the television show was a stranger rape, but certain elements took it outside the typical stranger rape scenario and blurred the lines between stranger and acquaintance rape — at least from the perspective of observers outside her apartment. For example, Sarah and Michael were shown being friendly toward one another in the elevator. Rather than attacking Sarah in a public space, Michael entered her apartment building and pretended to be friendly. Though he forced his way into her home at gunpoint, the image the television jurors could see was one of the two interacting amicably. It would certainly have been a stretch to describe them as acquaintances, since there was no indication they knew each other prior to the elevator encounter, but the rape was far enough outside the typical stranger rape stereotype that it introduced an element of doubt about consent in the jury's mind.

The first interaction that Sarah, the rape victim, has with the criminal justice system involves the police and a rape crisis counselor. The rape crisis counselor tells her that, because she has showered since the assault, it will be more difficult to prosecute her case, and reminds her that she does not have to pursue charges. Theoretically, reminding victims that they are not obligated to prosecute is intended to reinforce their sense of control over their bodies and decisions, since the rape has represented a profound loss of control. Historically, victims have reported that testifying at trial has been almost as traumatic as the rape itself, because they are effectively put on trial for their own behavior — particularly their prior sexual behavior. Therefore, the rape crisis counselor almost certainly intended to be helpful. However, her words sent a message to Sarah that, by showering, she had destroyed her chance at justice, and that her case may not be worth pursuing. This is a message that real-life sexual assault victims receive on a daily basis, and it reinforces the idea that they are somehow to blame for what happened to them, or less deserving of justice than another rape victim might be.

At the end of the episode, Sarah reacts with rage toward Benson because Michael was not convicted. One of the hallmarks of rape victim responses is that they often appear illogical to the casual observer. In the show, Benson was consistently supportive of Sarah and did nothing to earn her anger. However, it is critical to understand that sexual assault produces "effects that appear to vary as a function of the type of assault and a large number of victim-specific, trauma-related, and sociocultural variables. These variable and complex impacts are of such breadth that a given disorder or symptom cluster (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD], complex PTSD, or rape trauma syndrome) is relatively unlikely to capture the overall symptomatic experience of a given victim of violence" (Briere & Jordan, 2004). In other words, there is no stereotypical response for sexual assault victims, and the continuing expectation that victims should respond in a particular way leads some people to question the veracity of rape reports when the victim does not conform to that stereotype.

Conclusion

In real life, sexual assaults are among the most difficult crimes to prosecute, because the act at the center of the charge — sexual intercourse — is rarely witnessed by third parties, whether it is consensual or forced. Cases frequently come down to a he-said/she-said dynamic, and the jury's conclusion about whether an assault occurred depends heavily on its impression of the accused and the accuser. Jurors do not make these judgments in a vacuum; they bring all of their existing knowledge and biases into the courtroom. Specific background knowledge about other events can influence a jury's perception. In this television episode, for example, defense counsel invoked the documented history of black men being falsely accused of sexual assault. Jury members could not be unaware of the racial bias that exists in the American criminal justice system. Raising the specter of racial bias — even in a case where the television audience knew that Michael had in fact raped Sarah at gunpoint — was an effective way for defense counsel to introduce reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the fact that Michael had actually committed the assault does not preclude the possibility that racial bias also played a role in the handling of the case; the police had apprehended other black male suspects who bore little significant resemblance to Michael, reinforcing that concern.

Sarah's own behavior also contributed to the acquittal. While a woman's sexual history would ideally be irrelevant in a rape trial, in practice, when the central question is one of consent, a victim's immediate sexual history is difficult to exclude from consideration entirely. Sarah had been involved in two notable sexual situations immediately before the assault — a romantic relationship with her professor and a one-night stand the previous night. It is not beyond the realm of possibility for a juror to imagine that she was less than forthcoming about what actually happened with Michael. Unfortunately, Sarah's treatment by the criminal justice system mirrors the experience of many real rape victims. While this is deeply troubling, it is critical to keep in mind that a defendant's guilt is not determined by the severity of the accusations against him. The horror of a crime cannot alter the standard of justice. A rapist is an individual actor who commits terrible wrongs against another person, but if the standard of proof in rape cases were lowered, resulting in more convictions of actually innocent defendants, it would be the state inflicting that harm. There is a meaningful and significant difference between individual wrongdoing and state action — a distinction that many victims and victims' advocates overlook when calling for changes to rape prosecution laws.

Because the standard in the American criminal justice system is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, defendants are entitled to its benefit. There is no exception for particularly horrific crimes. While the television audience knew that Michael was guilty, they possessed information that the jury could not have heard. The false reporting statistics for rape are similar to those for other violent crimes, and given the number of wrongfully convicted people already in American prisons, lowering the evidentiary burden is not the appropriate remedy. There is a fundamental difference between the state depriving a person of freedom and an individual doing so. Rape is a terrible crime, but it is perpetrated by an individual. It would be a far worse outcome to allow the accusation of rape to function as a conviction. The result, as this television episode illustrates, is that some rapists will go free. Solving the problem, however, is more complex than simply educating jurors about the psychology of rape victims. As this analysis demonstrates, other social issues — particularly race — play a critical role in many prosecutions, making it unlikely that society will ever find a perfect balance between victim rights and defendants' constitutional rights.

References

Anderson, I. (2007). What is a typical rape? Effects of victim and participant gender in female and male rape perception. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 225–245.

Briere, J., & Jordan, C. E. (2004). Violence against women: Outcome complexity and implications for treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1252–1276.

Crocker, J., & Major, M. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630.

DeClerque, D. (Producer). (2011, November 2). True believers. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit [Television series]. New York: Wolf Films.

Nunes, K., & Pettersen, C. (2011). Competitive disadvantage makes attitudes towards rape less negative. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(4), 509–521.

Olsen-Fullero, L., & Fullero, S. (1997). Commonsense rape judgments: An empathy-complexity theory of rape juror story making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2–3), 402–427.