Adjusting attitudes regarding rape

Image credit to marsmet523

Features Editor Imogen Watson shares and explores her view of the apparent troubling culture surrounding rape and rape victims.

“I’m going to get in trouble for something I should be getting thanked for taking care of you.”

“It’s on YouTube. I’m not stupid. Stop texting me.”

A sixteen-year-old girl was the victim of rape, and above are two of the text messages between victim and culprit.

I speak specifically of the case in Steubenville, Ohio, which took place in August 2012, and for which two male juveniles – a sixteen- and seventeen-year-old – were prosecuted in March but, unfortunately, rape, and underage rape, is not as uncommon as it should be. We live in a rape culture.

Neither, does it appear, are the attitudes which went with this case. From the perpetrators themselves to the news broadcasters reporting it, the world seemed to have gone mad. An underage girl had been violated in such an appalling manner when she ought to have been looked after in that vulnerable state and coverage seemed more bothered about the boys convicted than the struggles the victim would have endured and would be yet to endure.

Because the case was so reliant on text messages and social media not only when it came to taking place, but also in prosecution, the evidence of the disrespect from Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond for women and the lack of knowledge or care for their actions is evident. They are not alone. Their friends and peers are equally unaware (in court, the party’s host Evan Westlake says “I didn’t know exactly what rape was,” when asked why he did not stop the digital penetration of the girl) and equally unbothered. Mays says in a text message, “I shoulda raped her since everyone thinks I did,” and he and other high school students – apparently friends of Mays – repeatedly refer to the girl in her inebriated state as “a dead body” rather than a living human being. Many adults could not be trusted either, with the football coach apparently became aware of the situation and “was joking about it”, according to the text messages.

One of the USA’s Big Three cable news channels, CNN, amongst others, did little better in their portrayal of the case, focussing on the end of the rapists’ future football careers rather than the girl’s future in getting over a rape. Referring to Richmond and Mays, CNN reporter Poppy Harlow spoke of “These two young men who had such promising futures — star football players, very good students”, who “literally watched as they believed their life fell apart.” Few seemed to think of, or be willing to report on, the effect on the victim’s life.

It is a taboo subject in mainstream media: the feelings of the victim. Yet if the media were brave enough – as in so many other situations like war, politics – they could use their influence to change these attitudes. Because rape is sufficient for anyone to have to deal with, but this time, and I suspect it is not a unique case, it was a rape about which she had to discover through text messages, pictures and video footage shared between supposed friends and much of the school, and one for which she was name-called and received death threats.

Regardless of anybody’s state of sobriety, and there is little condoning a culture which encourages teenagers to get blind drunk, these kinds of acts must be automatically considered a no-go area. Our culture still is one where football means more than human decency (as long as you delete the evidence, you won’t get caught for your wrongdoings), where people are taught not to get raped rather than not to rape, and where we encourage those on the receiving end of rape to not come forward or face a barrage of disbelief and accusations. Moreover, it still neglects to teach people what actually constitutes rape – as seen in this case – and that taking photos and videos in the first place, let alone sharing them is a vile manner in which to behave. All in all, the end result is a huge lack of respect for both women and for each other more widely in society.

And where exactly does that leave us?

Imogen Watson, Features Editor

Time and trial: when should we stop taking allegations seriously?

Rolf Harris: has the time for trial passed? Image credits: PicsByZuzanna

After the torrent of recent arrests, charges and trials, Features Editor Imogen Watson investigates what impact these rape and assault allegations will have for the television and media industries.

Is it ever too late to prosecute somebody for a crime?

In recent weeks and months, we have seen numerous famous faces hauled in for questioning and frequently charging on suspicion of indecent and sexual assault, many of which happened, literally (in the correct sense of the word) decades ago.  There have been actors, television presenters and producers all in the spotlight, and every few days appears to bring a new one. In terms of making shocking media headlines, of course the bigger the name, the better – Rolf Harris for one, and William Roach (Coronation Street’s Ken Barlow) too.

Perhaps it disappoints you. Perhaps your scepticism gnaws at you, asking if some people are jumping on a bandwagon. Perhaps you just feel like your childhood memories are being tainted, and are hoping no other accusation comes crawling out of the woodwork.

As all of these accusations are so far in the past, is it even fair to be investigating them now? Well, and I am not going to argue around the issue, yes. Difficult as it may be, whether or not we will be able to watch or remember our old favourite programmes in the same way should never be our principal concern. Unfortunately these kinds of problems form part of the harsh reality of our world that we have yet to eradicate; those on the receiving end of assault had to face it, and some far too earlier than would ever be wished upon anybody (and although some allegations are still exactly that, we have only to look at Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall to know not all are).

We are all aware that history can have a massive impact on both the present and the future, and it is by learning from that past we will constantly improve. That improvement will allow us hopefully to arrive at a place and time where these instances occur much less frequently. This is what the BBC has started to do by overhauling its bullying and harassment policy in the wake of recent months.

And, of course, if somebody has done something so grossly unjust, they ought to stand trial for it whenever that may be. Sooner is infinitely preferable to later, but later will still suffice. We also need a society where if someone has been attacked in such a way, they feel safe – provided the claim is true – to make the complaint and that situation is far from evident today. But that insistence on making true claims is always necessary. Once anybody’s name is put with such an accusation, an association has been made whether accurate or not, and a reputation is tainted for good.

Imogen Watson, Features Editor

Losing sight of the real victim: the Amanda Knox re-trial

Image credit: TIZIANA FABI/AFP/Getty Images

As the Meredith Kercher case rears its head again, Conor Byrne asks why the media appears to have forgotten the victim.

It is ironic that Amanda Knox’s autobiography, entitled Waiting to be Heard, is set to be published at just the same time that Italy’s highest appeal court has sensationally announced that Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito will face a re-trial for the tragic and highly controversial murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007.

Knox’s story has been one, unsurprisingly, of controversy, drama and fierce emotions. Viewed as an innocent victim by most American citizens, who whole-heartedly supported her when she returned to the USA in 2011 following her incredible acquittal, Knox has divided opinion around the world. I read an interesting article in The Daily Mail, which suggested that, unlike the USA, most countries continue to view her with ambivalence, if not open hostility, and thus question how correct it is that her memoirs are being published at this controversial time. It emerges that the re-trial has been ordered, not because of new evidence on Knox and Sollecito’s guilt or innocence, but because it’s been felt that the appellate trial may not have been properly conducted.

Certainly the trials have been tainted in controversy; Knox herself claimed that the use of evidence was questionable, and many have agreed with her. Insufficient forensic evidence tests were particularly condemned, and prosecutors alleged that the court which acquitted Knox and Sollecito had ‘lost its bearings’ in the case. Knox issued a statement shortly after this announcement that it is ‘unfounded and unfair’. She maintains that ‘our hearts go out to them [Meredith’s family]. No matter what happens, my family and I will face this continuing legal battle as we always have, confident in the truth and with our heads held high in the face of wrongful accusations and unreasonable adversity’.

But is this process ‘unreasonable’, as Knox claims? Look at the incredible drama surrounding the case – as I write this, there are no fewer than 1096 comments on the Guardian’s article covering this development. Knox arouses strong opinions and feelings: whether love and respect from American citizens, or hatred and hostility from those who believe she had a crucial hand in Meredith’s murder.

The real victim, Meredith Kercher, is being ignored and neglected in all of this. If Knox is truly innocent, then it is understandable why she, famously, made numerous cartwheels and reacted with wild celebration on discovery of her acquittal, and celebrated even further by reportedly signing a multi-million book deal to reveal, in her eyes, the ‘truth’. But her reaction, to many, seems callous and insensitive. Yes, she has been acquitted, but what about the girl with whom she spent time living, socialising, befriending, eating, sharing confidences and so on? Does that friendship mean nothing? In my reading of this case (albeit only from newspapers), Knox appears to have made very few utterances regarding Meredith herself.

Meredith’s death was brutal and appalling. It shows the depth of sadism which sexual antics can degrade to and the murky nature of that night in 2007 will never be fully known. She was dead by the unbelievably young age of 21, when her whole life should have been ahead of her. Many comments on the Guardian seem to agree with my stance – ‘AhBrightWings’ opines: ‘To make money off another young woman’s death is grossly insensitive. She should hand over the proceeds to charity. That would go a long way to clearing her name’.

I am not suggesting Knox is guilty, far from it, but she does not seem a likeable woman. She has been portrayed by the media as calculating, manipulative, insensitive and fully aware of the sexual power she holds over men. Whether or not this is true, and one must remember the media’s ability to exaggerate and distort, there is something very distasteful about a young woman who, rather than mourning her housemate’s tragic and brutal death, is currently celebrating the millions she will make from a book supposedly revealing the ‘truth’ of her case. Let us remember who the real victim is here, who is forever silenced, and who may never receive justice.

Conor Byrne