“The Accused” inspired yet another round of interesting conversations between our esteemed guests and the attending audience on the third night of our Film Festival.
The main point seemed to be about the way in which victims in the criminal justice system are unrepresented and so often unheard as they make their way through the cold, maze-like machinery of justice. The indignity and disrespect of the plea bargain process, especially in cases involving violent sexual crimes, results in victims feeling dismissed and their pain trivialized. The fact is: A rape is quite different from reckless endangerment, and the legal system’s impulse to imprison offenders for crimes they didn’t do in order to assure that they will not escape imprisonment altogether–even at the expense of truth, even at the expense of giving victims their day in court to tell their stories of pain and victimization–is at the center of this film and what led to the most interesting, if not heated, exchanges between our panelists.
Roz Myers argued stridently that victims of sexual crimes are unlike other victims and should therefore be treated differently. The idea that they are often deprived of participating in their own case and not consulted as to whether a plea bargain will or should be offered is thoroughly dehumanizing and leaves the victim bitter about her experience–one in which the truth of what happened to her, and her desire to speak to it, is bargained away in favor of a more efficient legal resolution.
Joel Seidemann believed that it is his duty to protect society from future crimes as much as it is to serve the victim’s wishes. Roz Myers said that the idea that the state is a victim in a case of rape when it is so clear that the actual victim is the only real victim underlines the problem that the film presents. Indeed, the victim learned about the plea bargain no sooner than anyone else–while she was watching television.
But there are still some questions left unanswered. Why shouldn’t the bystanders have been punished, too? Why does the film make a distinction between the bystanders who cheered versus the bystanders who simply nursed their beers? There is a sense in the film that the victim would have felt reconciled to the result even if the offenders had not ultimately been punished, simply because she was given a day a court to tell her story to a jury and the outside world. Is that a likely attitude for most victims?
In response to the last question concerning the attitude of the victim: I honestly feel that not all victims of rape and other heinous assaults want a day in court to tell their stories. It is a debate in the victim’s mind of whether telling the world what happened to me is really going to achieve true justice or should I not tell because of the further humiliation and harassment I may endure. Ms. Myers makes an excellent point that sexual crime victims are different and should be treated differently. They have suffered enough pain and loss; to expose them to the harsh standards set for all other victims whould further enhance the suffering and grief they have experienced. Plea Bargains are “dehumanizing” especially if the victim is not able to assert whether they can accept the idea of a plea bargain or is trial the better option. Without that choice, most sexual crime victims would feel bitter and resentful towards the justice system.
In part, I agree with the comment above (by sidmuj) in that many victims of rape and other physical assaults do not want or need their “day in court”; the story that we might assume rape victims want to tell may in fact be the story they want to hide or bury, or move past without sitting and talking about it in front of a bunch of lawyers who could care less. Just because some lawyer or well-meaning victims rights advocate comes along and says that rape victims need to tell their stories doesn’t mean it’s in the victims’ best interest. In my mind, Mrs. Myers’ comment that sexual crime victims should be treated differently is in many respects ludicrous. Clearly she has not considered the possibility that positioning a rape victim as “different” than other victims might also have a “dehumanizing” effect. These victims have been victimized enough, been made to feel that they are different (and, remember, that “different” to many “thinking” individuals feels negative, and translates as “less than”). Myers is unfortunately all too quick to make sweeping generalizations about all rape victims, reinforcing their victimization and telling them essentially that “what has happened to you is so horrible that you’ll probably never get over it, and that’s why you need to be treated differently.” Maybe they want to be treated like everyone else, like other human beings. They’ve already been treated like animals by the rapists. Why keep reinforcing their difference? Likely Myers means well, but some of her comments feel self-conscious, contrived, and overly generalized.
Re: endgame’s comment, I don’t think Ms. Myers meant that we should tell victims that “you are different” or that “you’ll probably never get over it.” Rather, I believe she meant that these victims should be treated with a heightened sensitivity that takes into account their personal wishes, which for some may include telling their story and for others may include moving on and guarding their rights to privacy. In particular, I believe her comment was relevant to Mr. Seidemann’s comment that, in general, he cannot undo the damage that has already been done to victims, so his chief concerns were achieving justice for the state and deterring future crimes of the same nature. Personally, I think it is rarely true that the victim’s suffering cannot be alleviated, at least in part, by the legal proceedings for their crimes. Many people have a desire for emotional closure, especially those whose crimes were more spiritual (and less material) in nature. Thus, victims of sexual assault should arguably be entitled to more say in how their proceedings are handled than, e.g., the victim of a white-collar money-laundering scheme.
cla — I don’t doubt the possibility of what you claim Mrs. Myers “meant”; however, there is often a substantial disconnect — one that is both spiritual and psychological, if I may say that, violent on both counts — between what is meant and what is said. I suppose I would have a problem with privileging Mrs. Myers intentions over the actual impact on the psyche of a sexual assault victim. In other words, Mrs. Myers good intentions do not, in all or most cases, even begin to repair the damages done to the victim. My point is her ignorance of the potential for her stance to exacerbate the victimization of people who are victims of sexual assault.
RE:SidMuj comment, i agree a hundred percent with what your saying about victims reliving their experience all over agian in court when called to testify. But i think they SHOULD and they MUST give their testimony because the world needs to know what happen all thought they will be going back to that place it must be told. If they are slient they cant be heard obviously but if they speak up and if they give a detailed enough discription of what happend to them maybe somewhere along the way some one will be moved and then truly the victim will recieve a sense of compensaion for the pain and hurt they had to have endured at the hands of theis unjust creature.
Re:Injustice: Why should they retell their story? Besides giving the victim a chance to feel a sense of relief, stating that a victim must tell their story does not ensure them that justice will be served. They can still be shunned by the legal system. It almost like a double edged sword. It should be a choice. If the victims wants to retell their account of what occurred then no one will stop them and if they do not want to, then that is there decision as well.
Re: Response to Sidmuj
Sid, I understand what your saying. That it should be the victim’s decision wheather or not they should share their story. But dont you think that by the victim speaking out this well serve as a kind of compensation? I mean there is no given guarantee that justice will be served but dont you think the victim should retell his/ her story so that people will know, and by them knowing they may be a little bit more cautious as how they may view an offender?