A Rape Victim's Journey to Justice through the Courts

6

A Rape Victim’s Journey to Justice through the Courts: Barriers, Struggles, and Effects

By Saahithi Sreekantham

BASIS Chandler School, Class of 2024 Chandler, Arizona

Edited by: Tiffany Wen Reviewed by: Rachel Wechsler

7

I. INTRODUCTION Across the nation, countless victims house untold tales of rape and sexual assault; victims who once had faith that the court system would provide justice for the crimes committed against them. Rape, a category of sexual assault involving unwanted penetration, and sexual assault, which is any form of unwanted sexual contact, are both sensitive topics with an abundance of stigma and stereotypes surrounding them. Because of this, assaults not only continue to happen, but also often go unpunished. Already, few victims turn to the criminal justice system, and for those who do, there are few successes. This paper examines the path a rape victim must take to receive justice through the court system, and how that system and those within it prevent victims from obtaining it. It is separated into three sections: (1) barriers to entering court, (2) struggles within the court, and (3) harm to future victims after court.

Prominent figures in the justice system include police, prosecutors, judges, and juries. Their decisions reflect societal attitudes more often than not. In 1980, Gary D. la Free noted that “the court trial is the most public aspect of the criminal justice process” (Free, 836). Because of this, trial outcomes are often more indicative of “societal reactions to rape” rather than careful consideration (836). Society’s intense negative attitude toward rape allows us to imagine how often judges and juries allow rapists to go unpunished.

Social attitudes toward rape are highly influential in such cases, and the largest components of these attitudes are traditional or religious attitudes. Society and religion have historically disregarded rape and sexual abuse, dating back to ancient Babylon. Specifically, “the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest sets of written laws, considered the rape of a virgin as property damage against her father or husband” (Bishop, 2018). Such attitudes continued through

8

biblical times as well, as demonstrated in the passage: “[a] wife is not the master of her own body, but a husband is” (I Corinthians 7, 3-5).

Rape myths, or clear demonstrations of negative social attitude toward rape, remain present in media and literature. In his book, Ars Amatoria, Ovid (a famous Roman poet) claims that “women often wish to…give unwillingly what they really like to give,” with “what they really like to give” a synonym for sex (Campbell, 5). Playboy, an American men’s lifestyle magazine, told its readers in July 1974: “A lovely youn[g] maiden named Hood [m]et a randy young wolf in the wood. Though she said she would die [u]ndefiled ere comply[, s]he gave in when she saw how things stood” (5). Here, “undefiled ere comply” meant that Hood intended to die a virgin but gave up on this idea after the wolf’s harassment. This encourages the dangerous idea that with enough pestering, a woman will agree to sex. Additionally, in Mel Brooks’s movie, Young Frankenstein, “Frankenstein’s fiancee discovers true happiness while being raped by the monster” (5). Finally, in the book New Centurians, “the police joke about a rapist and explain if they had been the rapist[,] there would have been no charges filed because the woman would have been satisfied” (5). These examples reinforce another misconception that women accuse perpetrators of rape because they were not sexually satisfied. 4 The media and literature play a prominent role in encouraging rape myths, and those rape myths will in turn affect legal decisions and can cause problems for rape victims in court and society.

These social views can heavily impact trials. It “wasn’t until 1871 that Alabama and Massachusetts became the first states to take this right [to legally beat a wife] away” (Mallicoat, 59). It was not until 1976 that Nebraska became the first state to outlaw marital rape, and it took

4

“Women” is used here and elsewhere in this paper, instead of a gender neutral term, because women are at higher risk of rape and sexual assault than men. One out of six American women are victims of attempted or completed rape, compared to one out of ten men (RAINN). However, the experiences of all rape victims are included and acknowledged in the topics covered by this paper.

9

until 1993 for all fifty states to follow suit (Bishop, 2018). This persists in rape cases notconcerning marital rape as well--the amount of successful convictions in rape cases also remainsextremely low, thus illustrating how daunting the court system is to a rape victim seeking justice.

II.

BARRIERS TO ENTERING COURTA. The Court System

1. Reporting

The first step in the path to justice is to report the assault to the police. However, the system itself often deters victims from doing so. Police often “unfound” rape reports, meaning they dismiss cases that they believe will not be successful due to “prosecutorial disadvantages” (LeGrand, 929). Approximately “one-fifths of rape cases [we]re ‘unfounded’” according to the 1971 FBI Uniform Crime Reports (928, Note 45). More recently, “[t]he 2017 national average was 36.5 percent, according to national crime-reporting statistics… [of] the FBI” (Perkins). The “founding” of a case is crucial, for police must believe the victim before the case to go to court. In this, the system fails. Bryden and Lengnick compared the system “to a giant sieve [that] filter[s] out cases at every stage of the process,” especially at the reporting stage (Bryden & Lengnick, 1208). Multiple factors influence police decisions to unfound cases, including: “(1) evidence that the victim was intoxicated; (2) delay in reporting by the victim; (3) lack of physical condition supporting the allegation, (4) refusal to submit to a medical examination, [and] (5) the previous relationship of the victim and the offender” (LeGrand, 928). Almost none of these factors relate to whether the rape actually occurred, but rather the prosecutorial disadvantages they present in court that may ruin a prosecutor’s record. Thus, a rape may be

10

“unfounded” simply due to prosecutorial disadvantages, thus erasing the victim’s chance at justice.

If an officer does not unfound a case, they must make the arrest––however, half the time, this is not done. A “compilation of arrest rate statistics [since 1987] indicate that…[only] 40% to 52% of all founded rape complaints led to an arrest” (Bryden & Lengnick, 1220). According to the FBI, as of 2018, “33.4% [of reported rapes] resulted in an arrest,” proving that the issue continues today (2018 Crime in the U.S. FBI Data). 2. Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutorial discretion is the ability of a prosecutor to choose whether to prosecute a case and, if so, what the exact charges will be. 5 Prosecutors have virtually limitless leeway to accept or reject cases. The most common reason why prosecutors decline to charge in rape cases is that they deem some as “unwinnable.” In 1990, Frohmann found that “prosecutors screen out the[se] ‘unwinnable’ cases to improve their conviction rates, because this impresses their superiors and, if they are politically ambitious, the electorate” (Bryden & Lengnick, 1246). Other factors affecting these decisions are “the seriousness of the offense, the strength of evidence in the case, and the culpability of the defendant” (Holleran, Beichner & Spohn, 387). Though a prosecutor can opt for reduced charges in weaker cases, most assume the case is so weak that it is better to not file charges at all (Bryden & Lengnick, 1209). Predictions of a case being “unwinnable” are “inherently uncertain,” so prosecutors often compare the case to “stereotypes of genuine victims” in their decision to prosecute (Holleran, Beichner & Spohn, 390). This means they compare the case to what judges and juries are most likely to believe a true victim looks like--such as a victim of stranger rape or the ‘stranger-in-a-dark-alley’ circumstance.

3. Law and the Model Penal Code

5

This section will focus on the decision to prosecute in the first place.

11

There are not many laws in existence that actively or directly deter rape victims from reporting. The provision most relevant that deters rape victims from reporting and condones rape culture is in the Model Penal Code (“MPC”). Even though the MPC is not currently binding on any American legal jurisdictions, it is often used for reference when creating laws and is crucial to understand the history of sexual assault laws. The MPC was designed to help state legislatures update, integrate, and standardize federal penal codes of the United States. (Robinson & Dubber, 326).

The MPC defines rape as a man who has had sexual intercourse with a female who is not his wife, and only if the incident meets one or more of the following conditions: “(1) he compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone, (2) he has substantially impaired her power to appraise or control her conduct by administering or employing without her knowledge drugs, intoxicants or other means [to prevent] resistance, (3) the female is unconscious, or (4) the female is less than 10 years old” (OLR Research Report, 1998). This definition tells us that (1) marital rape is not considered rape; (2) if the victim has not been subject to threat, serious injury, extreme pain, or kidnapping, it is not considered rape; (3) if the victim can control her conduct and is not intoxicated, it is not considered rape; (4) if the female is conscious, it is not rape; and (5) if the female is older than ten, it is not rape. These provisions cause uneasiness regarding how often the MPC is studied and used today.

B. Social Context There is a myriad of other factors that affects the decisions of rape cases in court. The most concrete examples are racial overtones of victims and religiosity of legal officials. 1. Racial Overtones/People of Color

12

A prosecutor’s decision to file charges is influenced by “downstream orientation,” or anticipation of how judges and juries will react (Holleran et al., 389). Elements of downstream orientation include stereotypes about victims and race (Kennedy, 12–14). For example, “prosecutors were 4.5 times more likely to file charges if the victim was white” and “least likely to file charges when the victim was black.” (Spohn & Holleran, 671). Additionally, “prosecutors were more likely to file charges against men who assaulted white women who were strangers to them than men who assaulted black women who were strangers to them” (Kennedy, 15). Although prosecutors should remain unbiased, race has a substantial effect on prosecutorial discretion, often as an implicit factor. This is a significant barrier to entering court for a victim.

2. Religion

Some religions condone the idea that women should be blamed for rape. Specifically, “men higher in religiosity…were more likely to believe that women who are promiscuous or who dress...provocative[ly]... deserve to be raped” (Edwards et al., 767). Religion and tradition may also be where many rape myths originate. Religion can substantially affect legal actors in the justice system. Within prosecutorial discretion, there is “potential for prosecutorial abuse...by possibly injecting impermissible criteria into the process,” such as religion (Heller, 1314, Note 19).

Religion also intersects with race. For Hispanic Catholics, women “are expected to protect their virginity at all costs and failing to do so will dishonor their family” (Parratt et al., 51). Religions and religious institutions across the nation sustain these beliefs about sexual assault, and decisions in the criminal justice system are heavily influenced by such notions.

III.STRUGGLES IN COURT

13

A. Prosecutorial Discretion

As discussed above, prosecutors choose whether to file charges and how punitive the charges will be. There is a complex network of legal and extralegal factors influencing a prosecutor’s decisions about the filing of charges in sexual assault cases.

Legal factors include downstream orientation and burden of proof. “Downstream orientation” predictions are “inherently uncertain,” making it difficult for prosecutors to predict the case in front of them. Prosecutors create a mental framework that combines stereotypes of “real crimes and genuine victims” (Holleran et al., 390). Another important factor is the “strength of evidence available”––the “heavy burden of proof” prosecutors face forces prosecutors to alter charges accordingly––victim testimony without corroboratory evidence is often not enough to prove the initial charge (392).

Prosecutors then focus on extralegal factors, including the background of the suspect and victim and their relationship to each other. Prosecutors know that these “extra-legal factors [can] influence the beliefs of police…and judges concerning the validity of a rape complaint” (Stewart et al., 164). Prominent extralegal factors include (1) “whether or not there is an eyewitness,” (2) “the degree of force used,” (3) “the existence of a prior relationship between the victim and the offender,” (4) “the sexual experience and general character of the victim,” (5) “the victim's behaviour and demeanour prior to and after the rape,” and (6) “the length of time between the assault and reporting” (164).

Prosecutors may resort to reduced charges if they cannot predict the downstream orientation of these factors. Most rape prosecutions are “dealt with as altered charges, as opposed to being retained on the original charge” (Minch, 15). As discussed above, prosecutors may reduce charges because of the lack of evidence supporting the charge, despite their own beliefs

14

about the case (Holleran et al., 386). For example, in a rape case study, “the prosecutor believe[d] [the] defendant [was] likely guilty, but because the evidence [was] weak, [they] offer[ed] a...sentence reduction instead of a guilty plea” (Turner, 2). There is no requirement that prosecutors choose a sentence that “proportionately” punishes the defendant (2). This “substantial discretion” leads to decisions that vary in the “reduction of charges, dismissal of charges, plea bargaining, [and] appeal of a conviction and/or sentence and maintenance of the original charge” in the course of a particular rape (Minch, 6).

B. Judge Prejudices

Judges mentally categorize rape cases in their decision-making process. In a 1974 study, thirty-eight judges “appeared to divide rape cases into three basic types, giving each category a different degree of credibility” (Bohmer, 304). The first type is “genuine victims,” such as a “stranger leaping out of the shadows in the dark alley” (304). The second is “consensual intercourse,” which includes beliefs that the victim “ask[ed] for it” (305). Judges may also refer to this as: “friendly rape,” “felonious gallantry,” “assault with failure to please,” and “breach of contract” (305). These euphemistic terms illustrate how judges soften the initial impact that comes from the term “rape,” indirectly endorsing stereotypes and prejudices. The third category is “female vindictiveness,” in which judges believe the allegation is simply a woman’s “desire to get even with a man” (305). These categories indicate that judges may not believe allegations that do not fit their mental framework and social attitudes.

Prejudice can be seen in quotes from judges themselves. Judge Gabriel Hutton said to a guilty rapist, “I hope you’ll be able to keep your well-paid job and the couple of weeks you spend in prison will be treated by employers as part of your holidays” (Staveley, 2020). Judge Raymond Dean said, “[a]s the gentlemen on the jury will understand when a woman says no she

15

doesn’t always mean it” (Staveley, 2020). Another judge “considered the sixteen year old [victim]'s clothing and sentenced the convicted fifteen year old defendant to only probation…call[ing] for women to ‘stop teasing’ and for a ‘restoration of modesty in dress,’” clearly reflecting traditional attitudes and prejudices about rape victims (Lennon et al., 394, Note 18). The same judge said, “whether women like it or not, they are sex objects. Are we supposed to take an impressionable person 15 or 16 years of age and punish that person severely because they react to it normally?” (394, Note 20). Finally, Judge Thomas Low said to a convicted rapist, “[t]he court has no doubt that [the rapist] is an extraordinarily good man…. But great men sometimes do bad things” (Staveley, 2020).

These quotes not only have impacts on victims but also on juries. Victims who see these cases and quotes in the media may become wary of the criminal justice system and refuse to enter it. Judges’ beliefs impact juries heavily and thus cause more acquittals. This increased amount of acquittals also affects rapists, who might believe that they can escape punishment for rape. Such ideas are dangerous for citizens throughout the nation.

C. Jury Prejudices Jury prejudice is affected by numerous factors. The most prominent ones are (1) type of rape, (2) pre-rape behavior, and (3) rape myth acceptance (Rerick et al., 552).

Historically, the type of rape has had a substantial effect on juries. Acquaintance rape (when the rapist and victim previously knew each other) is the category most affected by jury prejudices. In an analysis of rape cases by Kalven and Zeisel, of the forty-two acquaintance rape cases “with no aggravating factor,” only three received a guilty verdict. This seven percent conviction rate “represents a…nullification of…rape in cases where the parties knew each other and no aggravating factor was present.” (Bryden & Lengnick, 1255, Note 402). Basically, “juries

16

in simple rape cases in effect rewrite the law of rape…acquitting the defendant of rape when they perceive that the alleged victim's conduct helped to precipitate the rape” (1258). In addition, “juries were four times more likely to convict when sexual assault cases involved aggravating factors such as stranger assailants, multiple assailants, or violence as compared to when they did not” (Hildebrand & Najdowski, 1061). This illustrates the idea that juries do not believe acquaintance rape is possible, or at the very least, is uncommon. This false perception causes a precarious situation for acquaintance rape victims who look for justice.

The pre-rape behavior of the victim is a highly influential factor on juries. Specifically, “the sex life of the victim but not the accused is open to the public investigation” (Campbell, 5). Frequently, “juries in simple rape cases…acquit…the defendant of rape when they perceive that the alleged victim's conduct helped to precipitate the rape” (Bryden & Lengnick, 1258). When they decide that the victim “contributed” to the rape through their actions, juries either acquit or decide that the perpetrator is guilty of a lesser crime (Danow, 116).

Rape myth acceptance is often the biggest reason why juries acquit in rape trials. One study tested the youngest population that was eligible to be on a jury––college students. This study concluded that 17% to 75% of college students believed in “various rape myths” (Hildebrand & Najdowski, 1064). Specifically, 20.7% agreed that “[m]any females have fantasy dreams about rape,” and 29.7% agreed that “[w]omen often falsely accuse men of rape.” (1064). College students are the youngest group eligible to be jurors––this study shows that a disconcerting amount of eligible jurors believe rape myths.

Pack conducted a study to better comprehend how rape myths affect juror decisions in rape cases. Participants were given a pre-test and then participated in a mock trial (Pack). After the deliberation, a post-test was given to participants, which “revealed that about 72% of people

17

that participated in the study accepted at least one of the fourteen rape myths on the post-test” (102). This illustrates how people have biases they do not even know about. “[A]lthough most people that participated in the jury panels seemed to deny the rape myths in the deliberations, they still accept them on an implicit or deeper level” (102). Although in deliberations, most of the jurors denied rape myths, they still endorsed them without realizing it. This implicit bias furthers the chance of acquittals for rapists and hurts rape victims trying to obtain justice.

D. Jury Instructions

Jury instructions are “instructions for jury deliberation that are written by the judge and given to the jury” (LII). An example of more controversial jury instructions is in the MPC: “A [rape] charge…is one which is easily made, and, once made, difficult to defend against, even if the person accused is innocent. Therefore, the law requires that you examine the testimony of the female person named in the information with caution” (Buller, 12). While this instruction is no longer in the MPC, it still can carry heavy influence over jury instructions and jury verdicts. Other instructions told jurors that an “unchaste woman is more likely than others to consent to sexual advances,” that “women who say no do not always mean no,” and that reluctant consent is not rape (12). These jury instructions are rape myths and may create and reinforce jury prejudices. Because of the judge’s “cautionary jury instruction…the judge encourages the jury to determine the defendant's guilt on the basis of the victim's reputation,” yet again reinforcing rape myths and stereotypes and creating even more barriers for victims to surmount. (Danow, 113).

E. Courtroom Pressures

Courtroom appearances are often required when victims give their testimonies. However, “[c]ourtroom appearances have been cited as particularly traumatic for rape victims” (Free, 839). Reasons why such appearances are traumatic for rape victims include (1) being in the same room

18

as the defendant, (2) the intimidating environment, and (3) victim blaming by juries, judges, and prosecutors (Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 6; Shapland, 135). For example, “sitting next to the defendant” causes “feelings of intimidation” (Shapland, 135). This affects victims’ tenacity and conviction, as well as their decision to enter the courtroom at all. The courtroom is an “impersonal and intimidating” environment that victims imagine when thinking about the justice system (Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 6 & 18). A courtroom full of people skeptical of your testimony would be daunting. This, coupled with juries scrutinizing the victims, “defense attorney inquiries[,] and the perpetrators insistence [of innocence]…makes [the] victims blame themselves” (6). These factors drive victims not to enter court in the first place and increase the chances of acquittal or dismissal.

IV.

HARM AFTER COURTA. Media Coverage

Media coverage influences social attitudes, which in turn influence legal actors in the court system. The most noticeable part of media coverage is headlines. Headlines can indirectly influence readers’ opinion of a piece before they even read it. For rape cases, headlines often focus on the perpetrator, highlighting positive traits that are irrelevant to the case. In the infamous Brock Turner case, media headlines read, “Brock Turner, ex-Stanford swimmer…” (James). This description of Turner’s college and sport affects readers’ image of him. Another example is Conor McGregor––one headline read, “Conor McGregor, a UFC Fighter, Sued in Ireland over Rape Accusations” (Panja & Draper). Not only are McGregor’s achievements irrelevant to the crime but they also act as a buffer for the link between “McGregor” and “rape accusations.”

19

News coverage also involves the articles’ contents. The way articles “frame” a message is a “fundamental aspect of communication and processing” (Layman, 4). The language that journalists use in framing has huge implications on their readers. For example, “accuser” may “invoke a less sympathetic reaction” than the “victim” (5). Evasive terms such as “non-consensual sex” can also alter readers’ views of the crime by lessening “the perceived severity of the crime” (5). Additional examples include “sex,” “caressed,” and “fondled,” for they are often thought of as “pleasurable or consensual acts,” not crimes (5). These terms diminish readers’ belief in the intensity or actuality of the crime.

The media often focuses on either extremely common or uncommon cases. Concerning commonality, the media’s tendency to focus on the “stereotypical dichotomy of male perpetrator[s] and female victim[s]” leads society to believe that other experiences are unlikely or even impossible (Layman, 2l). In one study, 150 articles focused on cases with male perpetrators, but only one incorporated “a story about a female perpetrator” (Layman, 9). Concerning uncommonality, journalists can create stereotypes of rapists by making them seem “monstrous” or “abnormal” in comparison to the average person. The idea that rapists are “[e]asy to spot” causes skepticism when perpetrators do not fit this stereotype (8). When rape cases are not similar to the stereotypes of those in the media, it “divert[s] the conversation away” from the sexual assaults that are much more common (9). This affects victims, because they will believe that acquaintance rape is impossible to pursue in court and thus refuse to report.

Media representation of women often sexualizes and objectifies them. Women are denoted “as sexual objects almost six times per hour during television shows popular among American college students” (Hildebrand & Nadjowski, 1068). Approximately “eighty-one percent of women were depicted as sex objects and women were more likely than men to appear

20

scantily clad and in… demeaning positions” (1068). Women are also more likely to be sexually objectified in advertising platforms. Specifically, women “are more likely than men to be portrayed in “two-dimensional” roles; that is, women [are] more likely to be sexualized and dehumanized” (1068). In another study, “fifty-two percent of [American magazine] advertisements used women’s sexuality to sell products (1069). Despite these harmful findings, “these studies do not even begin to address the pervasiveness of rape myths and sexual objectification in pornographic media” (1069). The media’s representation of perpetrators, victims, and stereotypes has substantial effects on future victims and rape in the court system.

B. Impact on Future Victims

Future victims are often silenced by the criminal justice system. Those who do not report fear that they would be blamed, not believed, or not take them seriously (Stewart et al., 165). Rape victims often do not report due to skepticism that they face when entering the legal process. Examples include (1) “police...prosecutors [and juries] who allegedly have deterred reporting by failing to take accusations of acquaintance rape seriously” and (2) “a justice system that ‘puts the victim on trial’ and...intimidates many [victims]” (Bryden & Lengnick, 1224). Victims often do not report for fear of (1) “what the jury will think,” (2) “police refus[ing to] arrest,” and (3) “prosecutors dismiss[ing] prosecutions as ‘unwinnable’” (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 135). Perceptions of officials in the criminal justice system play a huge role in a victim’s decision to report (Bryden & Lengnick, 1196). This hesitation in believing rape victims discourages victims from reporting their cases to legal authorities.

Victims may fear legal consequences if they are not believed. Specifically, “some jurisdictions [have ruled that]...if a woman cannot prove that she was raped[,] she may herself be prosecuted” (Seiderman et al., 132). Victims who are aware of these laws may fear being in a

21

similar situation. In addition, “[r]ape victims are placed in the difficult and uncomfortable position of having to defend their actions to the justice system, becoming, in a real sense, defendants themselves” (Stewart et al., 161). This essentially puts the victims on trial instead of the prosecutors, further discouraging them from believing in the court system’s ability to help them in their path to justice. C. Legal Outcomes

Successful outcomes for rape victims in the criminal justice system are few and far between. Today, “[o]ut of every 1,000 sexual assaults, 975 perpetrators walk free” (RAINN). For convicted perpetrators, “the average term imposed was just under 14 years. About 2% of convicted rapists received life sentences” (Greenfeld, 2). Out of convicted sex offenders, “about 23,400...are under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies…. Nearly 60% are under conditional supervision in the community,” meaning they are on conditioned parole or probation instead of in prison (2). Thus, perpetrators are more likely to be released on parole or probation instead of serving time for their crimes. For every offender in jail or prison, “there are almost three offenders on probation or parole supervision in the community reported” (Bureau of Justice Statistics). This scarcity of legal successes in the justice system forces victims to realize that justice may not be available to them.

V. CONCLUSION

Rape victims are denied fair treatment and justice at every stage of the American criminal justice system. However, there are steps the nation can take to improve both the likelihood of victims reporting and their treatment in the justice system.

22

Police and prosecutorial discretion to deny rape cases is one of the biggest barriers to entry for rape victims. This power is often abused, and most of the public is unaware that this abuse even occurs. Increased internal review of such decisions by higher-ranking legal officials and judges is necessary. An alternative is creating a strict procedure for police and prosecutors in rape cases that allows as many rape cases as possible to enter the court system fpr victims who do wish to see the perpetrator incarcerated. Such procedures will restrain a police officer or prosecutor’s ability to deny a case due to their own biases.

Within the courtroom, allowing a victim to be present for court proceedings and limiting pressures on them will help exacerbate the victim’s testimony and help them receive justice. Shockingly, victims aren’t always allowed in the courtroom––prosecutors may pursue the case without the victim being present, even if they wish to be. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Even when a victim is present, their case is often simply reported and then handed off to actors in the legal system who handle it in their way. The justice system requires victims to come forward but does not require their presence afterward. Increasing a victim’s role in their case and making their opinions heard is crucial to achieving fair treatment in the justice system.

Courtrooms structured specially for rape victims could also increase their legal successes (Smith & Skinner, 17). In such courtrooms, using judges without juries may help victims, because it can be less intimidating for victims to face down a judge rather than a panel of jurors. In addition, experts on domestic violence and sexual assault should be present (17). Legal personnel in these courts would be trained to handle rape cases so that such officials are aware of myths and stereotypes (17). This would offer a courtroom open to “information-sharing and advocacy” (18). For a short-term alternative, amending jury instructions may help limit the impact of rape myths on juries and increase legal successes for victims.

23

Of the thousands of crimes that happen daily across the United States, rape is one of the most horrific. To many, it is an unsavory and abhorrent topic, meant to be hidden in the shadows, where it has festered into a pandemic of its own sort. Victims are considered defiled and dirty, both in the “impartial” justice system and out. America’s court system is inherently flawed, especially when it comes to rape victims. It is critical for the nation to improve the criminal justice system to aid sexual assault victims in their journey to justice.

24

Works Cited Bohmer, Carol. "Judicial Attitudes toward Rape Victims." Judicature, vol. 57, no. 7, February

1974, https://dpl6hyzg28thp.cloudfront.net/media/57Judicature303.pdf.

“Brock Turner, Ex-Stanford University Swimmer Convicted of Sexual Assault, Denied New Trial.” USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/08/stanford-university-swimmer-convicte d-assault-denied-new-trial/943186002/.

Bryden, David P., and Sonja Lengnick. “Rape in the Criminal Justice System.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 87, no. 4, 1997, p. 1194. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/1144018.

Campbell, Patricia B. “Are We Encouraging Rape?” Annual Meeting of American Psychological Association, Aug. 30–Sept. 2, 1975, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED120631.pdf.

Daly, Kathleen & Curtis-Fawley, Sarah. Justice for Victims of Sexual Assault: Court or Conference? New York: New York University Press. July 2004, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathleen-Daly-2/publication/228616831_Justice_for _victims_of_sexual_assault_Court_or_conference/links/574ce6d408aec988526a2643/Jus tice-for-victims-of-sexual-assault-Court-or-conference.pdf.

Danow, James F. "Jury Instruction in a Rape Trial: Recent Revisions and the Argument for Further Reform." Criminal Justice Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, Spring 1976, p. 113-130, https://dpl6hyzg28thp.cloudfront.net/media/1CrimJustJ113.pdf.

Edwards, Katie M., et al. “Rape Myths: History, Individual and Institutional-Level Presence, and Implications for Change.” Sex Roles, vol. 65, no. 11–12, Dec. 2011, pp. 761–73. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2.

25

la Free, Gary D. “Variables Affecting Guilty Pleas and Convictions in Rape Cases: Toward a Social Theory of Rape Processing.” Social Forces, vol. 58, no. 3, 1980, pp. 833–50. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2577187.

Furbish, Lawrence K. “Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault Provision.” OLR Research Report, vol. 98, Dec. 18, 1998, https://cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/98-R-1535.htm.

Greenfeld, Lawrence. “An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault Sex Offenses and Offenders”. Bureau of Justice Statistics. January 1997, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF.

Hildebrand, Meagan & Najdowski, Cynthia. “The Potential Impact Of Rape Culture On Juror Decision Making: Implications For Wrongful Acquittals In Sexual Assault Trials.” Albany Law Review, vol. 78. June 10th, 2015, https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/about.illinoisstate.edu/dist/e/34/files/2019/09/Pack.pdf.

Holleran, David, et al. “Examining Charging Agreement Between Police and Prosecutors in Rape Cases.” Crime & Delinquency, vol. 56, no. 3, July 2010, pp. 385–413. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308977.

“Jury Instructions.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions.

Kennedy, Elizabeth. “Victim Race and Rape.” Feminist Sexual Ethics Project, https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/slavery/united-states/slav-us-articles/kennedy-full. pdf.

Layman, Katherine E. “The Representation of Rape and Sexual Assault Within News Media.”

26

Portland State University, University Honors Theses, May 22, 2020, https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2057&context=honorsthes es.

LeGrand, Camille E. “Rape and Rape Laws: Sexism in Society and Law.” California Law Review, vol. 61, no. 3, 1973, pp. 919–41. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3479776.

Lennon, Theresa L. et al., Is Clothing Probative of Attitude or Intent - Implications for Rape and Sexual Harassment Cases, 11(2) LAW & INEQ. 391 (1993), https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol11/iss2/3.

Lonsway, Kimberly A., and Louise F. Fitzgerald. “Rape Myths: In Review.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, June 1994, pp. 133–64. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x

Mallicoat, Stacy. “Women, Gender, and Victimization.” New York: New York University Press, September 2004, https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/95769_book_item_95769.pdf.

Minch, Candice. “Prosecutorial Decision-making For The Offence Of Forcible Rape.” Department of Sociology. 1984.

Panja, Tariq, and Kevin Draper. “After Criminal Case Ends Without Charges, Conor McGregor Is Sued in Ireland.” The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/sports/conor-mcgregor-lawsuit-ufc.html.

Parratt, Kayleigh A., and Afroditi Pina. “From ‘Real Rape’ to Real Justice: A Systematic Review of Police Officers’ Rape Myth Beliefs.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 34, May 2017, pp. 68–83. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.005. Perkins. “Pittsburgh Police Dismiss Nearly One-Third Of Rape Cases As ‘Unfounded.’” May 15,

27

2019, https://www.wesa.fm/identity-justice/2019-05-15/pittsburgh-police-dismiss-nearly-one-th ird-of-rape-cases-as-unfounded.

Rerick, Peter & Livingston, Tyler & Davis, Deborah. (2019). Rape and the Jury, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tyler-Livingston-5/publication/340755019_Rape_an d_the_Jury/links/5e9bcf2d4585150839e7f7fa/Rape-and-the-Jury.pdf.

Robinson, Paul H., and Markus D. Dubber. “The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview.” New Criminal Law Review, vol. 10, no. 3, Aug. 2007, pp. 319–41. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2007.10.3.319.

Service, The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public, et al. “A Reflection on the History of Sexual Assault Laws in the United States.” The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service, 16 Apr. 2018, https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/15/reflection-history-sexual-assault-laws-united-sta tes/.

“Sex Offenses and Offenders.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/sex-offenses-and-offenders.

Shapland, Joanna. “Victims, The Criminal Justice System And Compensation.” The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 24, no. 2, 1984, pp. 131–49.

Smith, Olivia, and Tina Skinner. “Observing Court Responses to Victims of Rape and Sexual Assault.” Feminist Criminology, vol. 7, no. 4, Oct. 2012, pp. 298–326. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085112437875.

Spohn, Cassia, and David Holleran. “Prosecuting Sexual Assault: A Comparison of Charging

28

Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases Involving Strangers, Acquaintances, and Intimate Partners.” Justice Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, Sept. 2001, pp. 651–88. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100095051.

Staveley, Jessica. “‘She Didn’t Put up a Fight.’ The Disturbing Quotes from Real Judges during Rape Trials.” Mamamia, June 24, 2020. https://www.mamamia.com.au/sexual-assault-court/.

Stewart, Mary White, et al. “‘Real Rapes’ and ‘Real Victims’: The Shared Reliance on Common Cultural Definitions of Rape.” Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, Sept. 1996, pp. 159–77. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02167608.

“Table 25.” FBI, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-25/table-25.x ls. Accessed 3 Aug. 2021.

Team, Mamamia. “‘She Didn’t Put up a Fight.’ The Disturbing Quotes from Real Judges during Rape Trials.” Mamamia, 24 June 2020, https://www.mamamia.com.au/sexual-assault-court/.

The Criminal Justice System: Statistics | RAINN. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system.

Turner, Jenia I. Prosecutors and Bargaining in Weak Cases: A Comparative View, in The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, 2012, https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1312&context=law_faculty.

Tyler J. Buller. “Fighting Rape Culture With Noncorroboration Instructions.” 53 Tulsa L. Rev. 1 (2017), https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3081&context=tlr.

29

“Women’s Access to Justice for Gender-Based Violence: A Practitioner’s Guide.” International Commission of Jurists, Feb. 2016, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-P ublications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG.pdf.