By Andrew Costello
Rape has hit an all-time high in popularity. Never before
has the topic been on the tongues of so many, from the media to the government
to an average citizen. Perhaps the issue is simply one of perception, much
clouded by the media storm that gathers and festers over events such as
shootings or rape. On the other hand, it could be an apparent changing attitude
towards rape, something that not too long ago was talked of little and rarely
acknowledged. Regardless, one cannot ignore the frequency with which the issue
bursts into the headlines: brutal gang rapes in India
and Brazil,
in the Naval
Academy, and, most recently, in the small Missouri town of Maryville.
Each one, except for the case in Brazil, has been marked by a failure of the
law to recognize the severity of the situation and properly address it,
followed by a public outcry in defense of the victims, leading to the
punishment of the rapists. There are many factors at play in these travesties;
however, the principal issue is the initial tendency of the prosecutors and judges,
principally male, to not pursue justice to the fullest when the problem first
arises, instead waiting for an outcry to properly address the case. The issue
with these cases lately is not that they are being kept out of the court, quite
the opposite, they are increasingly reported, a turn for the better; rather,
the core of the problem is the way in which they are treated by the law and
received by the public that impedes the due process of the law in such cases.
A
principal issue with most cases of sexual assault is that, instead of rallying
to the victims of rape, both those who are involved in the trial and those who
are not spend time debating minute issues of sex and gender rather than the
legal issues at hand. In essence, there has been a shifting of the blame from
those who have committed the crime to those on whom it was committed. For
example, during the case in the Naval Academy, in which a 20 year old sophomore
was raped by two football players, the defense asked the victim about her “oral
sex technique,” if she “’felt like a ho’” the next day, and “whether she wore a
bra or other underwear to the party” at which she was raped (Steihauer 2013, Navy Hearing). The defense justified
these questions by saying that the answers would inform as to whether or not
the sex was consensual or not. Therefore, for the defense, whether she had not
worn underwear to the party or performed oral sex would have signal compliance;
subsequently, the defense inquired, under the same pretense, if she had
apologized to those who had raped her, a completely unrelated and entirely
insulting question. Apparently, “how wide she opened her mouth during oral sex”
is indicative of her acquiescence (Steinhauer
2013, Navy Hearing). These queries
are appalling to hear in a court and are completely unrelated to the matter at
hand; unfortunately, it would seem that turning the trial away from the assault
itself is exactly the strategy that the defense is pursuing, seeking to
denigrate the victim rather than defend the obvious crime. Furthermore, the
defense is not only seeking to find signs of consent, but also to shift the
entire blame of the act upon the victim by assigning to her the identity of a
promiscuous woman totally devoid of morals.
There
is also general non-compliance on the part of both the legal team and the
residents of the small town (with a population of 12,000 people) in the case of
Daisy Coleman in Maryville, Maryland. This case has garnered a large amount of
press coverage recently after initially being dropped only to be picked up
again following a large show of support from a
protest organized by the hacker group Anonymous. The case examines the
sexual assault of Daisy, then 14, and her friend, then 13, by the son of a
prominent Missouri family, Mr. Barnett, and his friend. The proceedings seemed
as if they were going to move along swiftly, resulting in the convictions of
the two rapists, due to the abundance of evidence. The police had a video of
the act, dozens of items from the assaulter’s room, as well as clear evidence
of vaginal penetration in both girls (Arnett 2013, Nightmare). However, the case was suddenly dropped by Robert Rice,
the Nodaway County prosecutor, on the grounds of a “lack of evidence;” in
addition to this claim, the sheriff of Maryville listed a general lack of
cooperation on the part of Daisy and her mother as an important factor in the
case’s dismissal (Arnett 2013, Nightmare).
This is a marked change from directly prior to the beginning of the trial, when
the sheriff admitted that, while sexual assault cases usually lack evidence, he
felt “confident the office had put together a case that would ‘absolutely’
result in prosecutions” (Arnett 2013, Nightmare).
The family and especially Daisy herself were not only mistreated by the legal
system, but also by their peers in the closely-knit town of Maryville, who
immediately sided with the popular football player, Barnett, over the
newcomers. While residents took to social media to voice their hatred of Daisy
and her family, the family was attacked from all sides. Daisy’s mother was laid
off due to her association with the case, her siblings’ were booed at sports
events and, after being forced out of town, their house burned down to due an
“unknown cause” (Arnett 2013, Nightmare).
Lastly, a parent of one of the boys present at the rape declared that “Our boys
deserve an apology, and they haven’t gotten it yet” (Arnett 2013, Nightmare). The parallels between the
case in the Naval Academy and Daisy’s in Maryville are too many to list, but
the pattern is clear: women in rape cases are blamed as much or more for the
crime than those who committed it, by both the court and the populace.
The
reason for exactly why these two cases were so badly handled is an interesting
question to ponder as it deals more with cultural norms than with the execution
of the law. In both cases, the perpetrators were reputable, handsome, and
popular football players who had a reputation for liking to have a good time.
They received very little pressure from the trial in both cases, while Daisy
Coleman has already twice attempted to take her life, spent time in the
hospital, and was forced to undergo a 90-day recovery in a rehab for troubled
Missouri teens (Arnett 2013, Nightmare).
In his book The Masculine Self, an
explanation of the lopsided blame and aloofness of males in cases of rape, Chris
Kilmartin explores the roots of rape and why there is such a nonchalant
approach to its punishment. He describes the act as being rooted in the “cult
of hyper-masculinity,” which portrays “women as inferior, pliable, even
disposable” (Bruni 2013, Tackling). Building
on this point, Kilmartin refers to that fact that, in our society, “to be like
a girl” is to be weak and disrespected, in any realm, but particularly that of
sports. In reference to Naval Academy case, Kilmartin notes in his work that
rape in the armed forces is more difficult to tackle than in a civil setting
due to the mood of aggression found in the military, where women are often
treated like second-class citizens (Bruni 2013, Tackling). Furthermore,
he says that women are objectified in both pornography and popular media.
Political rhetoric can also play a
hand in the legitimization of rape in our country. A handful of Republican
politicians think that rape is legitimate. Some of these men are prominent,
such as Rick Santorum, who said on children of rape that “You can make the
argument that if she doesn’t have this baby… that… could ruin her life. I
believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created… but
nevertheless a gift… and accept what God has given you” (Somander 2012, Santorum). With young boys and men being bombarded by
such loaded rhetoric from all modes communication, a devaluation of women is an
inevitable consequence, helping to explain the manner in which rape cases are
handled.
While
the attitudes of many remain stubbornly set in their ways, there has been a sea
of change recently that is affecting the issue for the better. The first
important development is the protests that follow when rape cases are
mishandled, as happened
in the Maryville as well as in
India following the mass rape of a woman there. This growing popular tide
to uphold the rights of and defend the victims from those who would see them as
“sluts” is not only an important change in the attitude towards these cases,
but also a powerful tool to affect their outcome. When protestors in India
demanded that the perpetrators be sentenced to a speedy death and that policing
be augmented, that’s
exactly what happened. In the Maryville case, Daisy and her mother went
public and gathered support for their cause, eventually leading
the state to call a review of the case. The second development that should
be noted is an openness and understanding of the seriousness of rape, something
that should not be ignored. Last year, the “number of rapes reported… rose by
37 percent” in the city of Washington, D.C. (Hughes 2013, Report of Rapes). This is actually a good thing, as the rise most
likely reflects “an increase in reporting” and not an actual increase in sexual
assaults. In the same city, the George Washington University has amended
its sexual assault policy so that victims can report the crime at any point
during their college career, making it far easier for victims to recover and
then go through the university’s judicial process.
Regardless of the causes, these changes are
happening and they are a huge boon to the fight that victims of sexual assault
fight every day. The laws are fine, but our attitudes and cultural norms are
not: they need to change. The principal sentiment in the cases was the idea
that “boys will be boys,” and you can’t do anything about that. When asked
about his thoughts on the Coleman case, Robert Rice said, “They were doing what
they wanted to do, and there weren’t any consequences. And it’s reprehensible.
But is it criminal? No” (Arnett 2013, Nightmare).
Unfortunately, Mr. Rice is very much mistaken, it was a crime, and I am quite
certain that, if the case is brought back to court, Mr. Barnett will be going
to jail, where he belongs. A fairly normal tweet from Mr. Barnett recently
read: “If her name begins with A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X
Y Z, she wants the D,” (Arnett 2013, Nightmare).
His attitude towards women is sickening, and the crime and subsequent trial
have obviously had little to no effect on him. Daisy Coleman, the victim at the
Naval Academy, and countless other victims of rape need to have their rights
respected, they need to have justice served in their cases; however, we must
first change our attitudes about women in order to achieve a fairer, safer
world for all.
Bibliography
Arnett, Dugan. "Nightmare in
Maryville: Teens’ Sexual Encounter Ignites a Firestorm
against Family." -
KansasCity.com. The Kansas City Star, 12 Oct. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
Bruni, Frank. "Tackling the Roots of
Rape." NYTimes.com.
The New York Times, 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
Eligon, John. "High School Sexual
Assault Case Is Revisited, Haunting Missouri Town."NYTimes.com. The
New York Times, 19 Oct. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
Ford, Dana, and Cheri Mossburg.
"Special Prosecutor in Missouri Teen Rape Case Promises Thorough
Review." CNN. Cable
News Network, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
Hughes, Sarah A. "Reports of Rape
Increased By 37 Percent in D.C. Last Year." DCist. Gothamist, LLC, 11 July
2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
Murphy, Kevin. "Hundreds Rally in
Support of Alleged Rape Victim in Maryville, Missouri." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 22
Mar. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
Somanader, Tanya. "Santorum To Rape Victims: ‘Make The
Best Out Of A Bad Situation’." ThinkProgress
RSS. Think Progress, 2012. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
Steinhauer, Jennifer. "Navy Hearing
in Rape Case Raises Alarm." NYTimes.com.
The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
