It seems like these days rape has become a common occurrence. If you look at any news outlet, new stories and cases can be found just about daily. Today’s society is becoming increasingly desensitized to rape because it is seen so frequently. With cases piling up, we begin to see each new instance as a meer number and forget the weight of these heinous crimes, as well as, the toll it can take on the victim. The trials that ensue after a rape is reported are grueling and tend to place the word of the rapist over that of the victim. The bias in these cases becomes especially apparent when a woman 's word is pitted against a man’s. So the question arises: Does society have an inherent bias towards men in rape cases? In order to understand where
…show more content…
In fact many courtrooms today are faced with this very problem: the people appointed to maintain justice are the very people who tear it apart. Natalie Taylor (2007) discusses in her article, “Juror Attitudes and Biases in Sexual Assault Cases”, the issues of the personal opinions and biases that jurors bring to rape trials that taint the validity of the verdict due to the fact that verdict of a trial is mainly based on the jurors’ individual biases, attitudes, and beliefs about rape which prevents them from reaching a personal verdict rather than an objective result based on evidence. Rape cases are extremely difficult to prosecute and, therefore, requires the careful analysis of someone’s word when evidence is lacking. Prosecutors make an effort to manipulate the viewpoint of the juror while disintegrating the credibility of the victim. According to a study or prosecutorial decision-making by Lievore found that prosecutors were more likely to prosecute cases when the victim is injured, the victim physically or verbally expressed non-consent, the assault was severe, there was additional evidence linking the defendant to the assault, the defendant was forced, and the defendant was a stranger. The evidence demonstrates that individuals choose cases based on the severity and likelihood to win the
In fact many courtrooms today are faced with this very problem: the people appointed to maintain justice are the very people who tear it apart. Natalie Taylor (2007) discusses in her article, “Juror Attitudes and Biases in Sexual Assault Cases”, the issues of the personal opinions and biases that jurors bring to rape trials that taint the validity of the verdict due to the fact that verdict of a trial is mainly based on the jurors’ individual biases, attitudes, and beliefs about rape which prevents them from reaching a personal verdict rather than an objective result based on evidence. Rape cases are extremely difficult to prosecute and, therefore, requires the careful analysis of someone’s word when evidence is lacking. Prosecutors make an effort to manipulate the viewpoint of the juror while disintegrating the credibility of the victim. According to a study or prosecutorial decision-making by Lievore found that prosecutors were more likely to prosecute cases when the victim is injured, the victim physically or verbally expressed non-consent, the assault was severe, there was additional evidence linking the defendant to the assault, the defendant was forced, and the defendant was a stranger. The evidence demonstrates that individuals choose cases based on the severity and likelihood to win the