CW; TW: rape
This is the first post I’ve written for a particular audience: other men. This is because the last thing women need – and it’s not as if they don’t already have a near infinite supply – is another man telling them about something they are far more qualified to talk about. Also, as a feminist/ally/whatever, I understand that the most helpful thing I can do is try to talk to other men, because that’s where – at least in theory – I have an advantage.
The key point is that rape is not like other crimes, and until men at large appreciate this, it’s going to be difficult to act effectively against it. This is not to say that all other acts are the same, but rape cannot just be treated as another offence on the list the police and courts are to deal with. This is not just because it is overwhelmingly directed at women (and, yes, I am perfectly aware that a significant number of men will also experience rape), nor because of the terrible stigma attached to being a victim, although both of these are related. But in no other crime is it quite so common to find people denying that it ever happened. This is why you’ll find campaigns, hashtags, petitions and the like circulating to announce that other women *believe* an accuser. It’s all too easy to mentally dismiss these as being about female solidarity – and that is part of it, and a good thing in its own right – but it goes beyond that, as rape is the only crime where the public response routinely involves attacking the victim.
Take a murder trial: at some point in proceedings, the defence is able to provide a good enough alibi that the defendant is acquitted; so what happens next? Obviously this may be upsetting for the victim’s family and friends, and a set-back for the police and CPS, but a setback is all it (necessarily) is. The first thing you expect to see outside the court is the leading officer announcing that they intend to reopen the investigation and find out who *really* committed the crime. The same would apply for an assault, a robbery, or any of a variety of other crimes, and it may be true in the case of the cliched attack-by-a-masked-man-in-a-dark-alley. But with the vast majority of rapes, when the trial falls apart (assuming that things have advanced that far) the default assumption is now that the alleged crime never actually took place. Or that there was sexual activity, but the nature of it magically changed to being either fully consensual, or a mere misunderstanding or miscommunication (not that the latter should be excusable).
It’s not so much that I’m arguing that we should treat rape differently de novo, as observing that we already do, so we need to react to that. When a killing, or a theft is announced, we immediately accept the reality of the crime. There may be all sorts of theories floating around about the perpetrator, or how the crime was committed, but things have to get to a pretty extreme state before we consider that it might not have happened in the first place. So really, in saying that we believe a rape victim is only to restore that crime to the status we accord to the rest. To say that we believe a rape victim is to accord to them no more than the basic courtesy afforded to the rest of society.
Some expected responses
Now a certain fraction of mankind will immediately leap up against the idea that any one crime should be treated differently to the rest as counter to various principles of justice. My first response to that is to observe that legal and judicial systems are constructed and evolve over time; we might like to pretend that there are eternal underlying concepts, but the fact is that we have constantly modified both laws and systems to reflect the wider society. Also we already treat different crimes in slightly different fashions. Nobody seems to object to the notion that sexual crimes need to be handled with greater delicacy than others.
The second is to observe that apologists often seem very attached to a misreading of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This is part of a whole raft of narrow legal principles that people like to interpret as general rights, but without any sound basis (see also: people shouting about Freedom of Speech while failing to understand that the right, as most clearly given by the first amendment to the US constitution, which even non-US citizens tend to use a benchmark, is purely to not have *the state* limit one’s speech). If you’ve committed a crime in fact, you are not innocent up until the moment of conviction, in the sense of not having done it. The facts themselves do not change. You *are* innocent in the eyes of the law, but that is not the same thing. Nor is there any expectation against members of the public forming opinions at any stage in proceedings, except in the case of their being required to perform jury service. I challenge anybody to read the news without forming instant (if potentially malleable) opinions about the guilt or innocence of those reportedly involved in any incidents they read a few lines about.
And finally, and associated with the above, there’s the fact that a rape trial is, to an extent, zero-sum. To say that the defendant is innocent is necessarily to imply that the accuser is guilty (of fabricating, or at least exaggerating the incident). And in plenty of cases it goes much further than that: it has been horrible to observe over the past few years how many people tangentially connected to the Ched Evans case have attacked the victim in all sorts of public ways. And the rest of us have largely let this go because this is what the friends and family of someone accused of a crime are *supposed* to do – leap to the defence. But in the case of rape this can seemingly only be done by attacking the character and credibility of somebody who has already been subject to a horrific crime (and let’s not ignore that in this case he was convicted and hasn’t been able to provide grounds to appeal or overturn).
So this is why it’s important to believe anybody who says that they have been raped. We all know it happens a lot, even if we refuse to believe it in the face of overwhelming statistics. On the same basis we should also know that false accusations are vanishingly rare (not least because of the huge cost to the victim of going public. I don’t know where this myth of women getting rich and famous of the back of making accusations came from, but it’s as persistent as it is poisonous). But even if this were a possibility, with any other crime we’d expect the police and the courts to root it out. The women who have been raped deserve our support, and much of that comes from simply saying that we believe them. There is a time and place for scepticism, but it is not in the face of somebody who has just faced one of the worst experiences a person possibly can, and who will also be acutely aware that this is just the beginning of their ordeal.
Believing rape victims is the only decent thing to do.
Please note that when I’ve talked about rape in this, I include various other sexual offences; this is not about a particular legal definition, but a type of crime and how society does (and should) deal with it.