A court ruling in a rape trial halfway across the world outraged
many Americans nearly six years ago when it put blame on a victim
for wearing tight jeans. Today, one does not have to look very far
to see the same tactics of questioning the plaintiff’s
character being used in rape trials.
Though the only trials that the general public is aware of are
the ones widely publicized, and even sensationalized, by the media,
on most occasions, these trials tend to set the tone for the public
perception of rape and its process of prosecution.
Cases like the ones involving Kobe Bryant or UCLA’s own
Jane Doe, in which the characters of the victims were questioned in
court, are causing some experts to worry about where sexual assault
trials are heading.
“We are moving back to a period where women will be
reluctant to report rape for the fear that everything they have
done becomes public record,” said Ruth Rosen, an expert in
gender and public policy with the Rockridge Institute, a
nonpartisan research and educational institution in Berkeley.
“If this is a movement in this direction, I’m
concerned that this is a real obstacle for people to report
rape,” Rosen said.
Based on rape-shield laws, the defense in a rape trial is not
allowed to include evidence for the sole purpose of establishing
the personal character of the victim of the alleged crime, which
includes evidence regarding the victim’s sexual history
and/or factors such as her choice of clothing at the time of the
incident.
Such information can cause the jury to be prejudiced against the
victim, said Christine Littleton, a professor in the UCLA Law
School and director of the Center for the Study of Women.
Littleton added that there are exceptions to this law, and the
defense can introduce those same facts for a different reason, like
pointing out an inconsistency in testimonies.
But this is not always the case.
“The exceptions are being used for the wrong
purpose,” Littleton said, emphasizing that there are holes in
the system and the law needs to be re-crafted.
Abusing the rape-shield laws is not the only way the jury can be
persuaded to vote in favor of the defendant.
Tina Oakland, director of the UCLA Center for Women & Men,
believes the person being tried often creates a false persona for
his or herself, showing up to court wearing nice clothing with an
entire support system including family and friends, while the
plaintiff is often alone and can go from being the victim to
becoming “the accuser.”
Many believe these questions regarding the victim’s
dignity can in turn bring shame to women and discourage them from
reporting sexual assault crimes.
Rosen said rape-shield laws are allowing women to report rapes
and feel safe about it. She described growing up in New York before
shield laws were in place and remembers that victims needed two
witnesses when alleging they were raped.
“We have come a long way in terms of what kinds of
observant testimony is necessary,” she said.
Though the basics of laws regarding rape and rape trials have
changed dramatically, they are yet to stop hints of the past, like
character attacks, from entering the court room in today’s
cases.
“All victims are put on trial to prove their
credibility,” said Robin McDonald, who brought the
Clothesline project to UCLA in 1998 and has been working with rape
victims and survivors for nearly 20 years. Clothesline is a
three-day event that takes place every spring and hangs lines of
cloth on campus in memory of victims and survivors of rape.
In regard to questioning a victim’s character, McDonald
said not much has changed over time, and this practice has been a
theme throughout history.
She used Jane Doe as an example of what the general public
envisions as “a good victim” when they think about rape
crimes because she was allegedly raped by strangers.
“If someone off the street can get off, the victims who
are victims of date rape and have been at a party don’t even
have a fighting chance for justice being served,” McDonald
said.