The coverage of the case immediately prompted a discussion about how victims are treated in the criminal justice system. Women's rights campaigners used it as evidence of how society continues to overlook the needs of rape and domestic violence victims. While these concerns are mostly well-founded, I object to the use of the word 'victim' in this context.
The Guardian presented 'Sarah' as a 'victim' and her story as fact. Fact it may well be; it is possible that Sarah endured a horrific experience at the hands of her husband. Equally, however, it is also possible that nothing ever happened and that Sarah was not a victim at all. Indeed, that is the position the law should take. A cornerstone of the rule of law is the presumption of innocence. It should be presumed that her husband committed no crime until it has been proven otherwise.
Rape is a very serious offence. Society condemns rape in the strongest terms possible. It is the most serious offence short of murder and attempted murder. A rapist may be sentenced to life imprisonment. If not, he may be indefinitely locked up for public protection to be released only on the approval of the parole board. In any event, few rapists are likely to escape at least ten years in jail. Moreover, the social stigma attached to rape is overwhelming. It is fundamentally important, therefore, that we only use the term 'rapist' after a person has been properly convicted of the offence.
Given the nature of rape, the logical corollary of this is that the term 'victim' should only be used when it has been proven that a rape took place.
There has been a growing trend in criminal justice to pander to the needs of 'victims' at every possible opportunity. Tabloid newspapers frequently posit the question: what about the victim? It is right that society should support victims who have been through the most awful experiences. Describing them as 'victims' before conviction, however, pre-supposes that a crime has taken place. The only thing to support this at this stage is suspicion, however reasonable. This is very dangerous in a democratic society.
In my view, journalists and commentators should restrict the use of the term 'victim' until the suspect has been convicted. I acknowledge the considerable challenges in securing convictions in rape cases. However, the risks to the presumption of innocence when society accepts a victim's account as fact before it has been proven in court requires a more balanced approach.
Given your views above do you think that men who are accused of rape should have the same rights as women to have their identity concealed until they have been tried and proven guilty?
ReplyDeleteWhile, for the most part I agree with what you've said, I think that there is a particular class of people who you may have neglected to mention-that is people who are victims of crimes whose perpetrators are yet to be found.
ReplyDeleteEg; if you had a tv yesterday, and you came home to find your lock broken and your television, among other things, missing, you would almost undoubtedly be the victim of a break and enter and theft. There may not be an identifiable suspect, but that fact alone doesn't preclude you from being a victim.
That said, perhaps the issue isn't the use of the term victim in many cases, but in ones where the actual commission of the crime comes into question, it may be wise to err on the side of caution and refrain from using the term victim, or identifying the accused, in order to prevent there from being a potentially erroneous presumption of guilt.
In rape cases I would advocate some form of accused anonymity until guilt was proved in order to prevent a harsh stigma from being attached to an innocent person-the kind of damage that follows from a false accusation could prove irreparable.
Apologies for some of the awkward phrasing, wrote that last entry on my phone...
ReplyDelete1. Yes I do think rape defendants should have anonymity until conviction because of the very particular stigma surrounding rape.
ReplyDelete2. I do not doubt that some - probably the vast majority - of people who say they are victims are indeed victims. My objection is treating their stories as fact before it has been proven in court.
Common sense dictates that you are right in situations where it is obvious that some crime happened. I think a better example is an assault case where there are multiple witnesses. But in cases like sexual assault it should never be assumed that the complainant is necessarily a victim. Doing so unreasonably reverses the presumption of innocence.
I have often thought this while looking at press coverage.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that they are not subject to the same principals of the courts. It would be impossible to enforce upon coverage the avoidance of any implication of guilt on the part of the defendant, because of the subtleties involved.
Certainly, the example you gave of the word 'Victim' is a more absolute one, but it does not take much imagination or recall to think of how a writer could imply guilt less directly.
Regardless, a journalist could be as impartial as possible, society would still damn the individual. The 'There's no smoke without fire' mentality' is still the prevailing one.
To this end, I am also inclined to believe that a defendant's identity be protected until he/she is convicted. If they are aquitted, that protection should continue.
As Matt stated, I'm not making any presumption that those bringing charges of rape of sexual assault are not trustworthy, just that the gravity of the claim necessitates discretion until the matter has been brought to a close.
I apologise for the poor grammar and spelling, this was written in a rush while cooking!
ReplyDelete