Intersections of race and gender in sexual assault trials

This essay traces the development of intersectionality theory within the field of language and gender in relation to research on the language of rape trials. In early work on the topic, I used Judith Butler’s notion of the ‘rigid regulatory frame’ to understand the cultural intelligibility of certain kinds of rape victims in the legal system and the unintelligibility of others. But the inequities that complainants often experience in rape trials are not merely the result of sexism; rather, it is sexism and racism which together interact to disadvantage complainants and protect white male perpetrators, who occupy a privileged position within these contexts vis-à-vis men of colour. In line with recent work in the field, I end with an analysis of a rape case that demonstrates the necessity of attending to nonhegemonic masculinities and intersectionality.

Justice denied? Prosecutors and presiding officers' reliance on evidence of previous sexual history in South African rape trials

This article presents data from a study conducted by the Medical Research Council of South Africa, focusing on rape attrition in South Africa at different stages in the processes (from reporting at a police station to potential conviction). The study found that of the 3 952 reported cases of rape analysed 65% were referred to prosecution, and trials commenced in 18,5% of cases. Of the total 3 952 cases reported, 8,6% resulted in a guilty verdict. Using qualitative data from a subset of trial transcripts, the article focuses specifically on the problematic views of both presiding officers and prosecutors based on rape myths and gender-stereotyping at trial, and suggests that these are a factor affecting the attrition rate between cases referred to trial and those that result in a not guilty verdict.

Women’s behavior as implied consent: Male “reasonableness” in Australian rape law

Defendants in rape trials rely on narratives of “implied consent,” situating women’s ordinary behavior as having indicated consent. Such narratives ignore women’s experiences, instead describing a male perpetrator’s subjective interpretation or inference of the woman’s actions. Implied consent narratives should have been eliminated by law reform introducing affirmative consent that redirected attention to steps that the perpetrator took to ensure the other party was consenting. Drawing from an Australian study, this article uses rape trial excerpts from the state of Victoria to argue that implied consent narratives endure in rape trials and form the key factor shaping a reasonable belief defense. Rape law allows men to interpret women’s behavior without restriction, providing evidence of the persisting influence of misogynistic views of women in law and legal practice. This article contributes to feminist jurisprudential and theoretical efforts to generate understandings of the ways rigid gender norms are enacted and performed in rape trials.