Justice for Sexual Assault and Rape: The Public and Legal Discourses

• In Event: The Social Construction of Sexual Violence

Abstract

This study sought to explore how people make sense of/respond to high-profile sexual assault/rape cases and whether these public discourses are co-present in the legal discourse. This study used thematic analysis on data collected from (1) public Twitter posts, (2) legislative documents and (3) court sentencing remarks on several chosen cases. The findings revealed that some rape myths have shifted to subtler forms to delegitimise claims of rape, alongside some rape myths debunking (RMD) in online spaces. It is also noted that there is the continued existence of gaps between legal and public rape justice, including the confusion around consent, victim-survivor role/rights/protection during trial processes and judges’ sentencing considerations. The public tends to advocate for heavy sentences (i.e., retributive justice) and criticised “lenient” judicial outcomes for defendants who are wealthy, professional athletes, and have risen to fame. It is paramount for judges to explain to the public why certain factors are (ir)relevant to the sentence and the weight that may be accorded to them. The findings also brought up a broader conundrum on how much power should be given to public opinion/concerns (populism), which can be both beneficial and harmful to the democratisation process in a country.

Author

• Rita Lok, University of Queensland