Republican Lawmakers: When Rape Victims Aren't Victims

Change in Rape Lexicon Would Affect Perception of Attack and Attackers

Anybody who has had a close encounter with America's legal system knows that words are of paramount importance - arguably, society's definition of unlawful acts are the most important aspect of the courts.  Ultraconservative candidates and right-wing legislators, ever cognizant of this simple fact, continue to thunder about crime and punishment.  But among the ranks of misogynists arguing in judge's chambers and law enforcement officers who must make the actual arrests, there has always been a whiff of "she deserved it" emanating from certain knuckledraggers who view the female sex as subservient and violence against women as 'much ado about nuttin.'   As the GOP staggers to the Right on social issues, some lawmakers are letting their prejudice against women show.

Carolyn Fiddler reports for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC):  U.S. House Republicans have received a great deal of attention over the past week since seeking to qualify the crime of rape with the term "forcible" in a high-profile piece of legislation.  Such a distinction could create classes of rape victims, with "forcible rape" victims somehow being ordained as worse off than victims of statutory rape, date rape, rape by coercion or deception, rape of the disabled or mentally impaired… You get the picture.  But what if rape victims could no longer be referred to as "victims" at all?  What if people who have endured this horrible - and already chronically underreported - crime could only be called "accusers?"

Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin (of gold-standard-wannabe fame) has introduced a bill to change the state’s criminal codes so that in "criminal law and criminal procedure" (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as "accusers" until the defendant has been convicted.  Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn’t think you’ve been victimized. He says you’re an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

From Feministing:  It would take a long time to tease out the possible implications of changing those two words.  Here are just two:  Consider the number of survivors who are never legal accusers.  Changing those two words muddles the difference between a crime being committed and the act of accusing someone of committing that crime.  One can be a victim, a survivor of rape, without legally accusing anyone.  Given the under-reporting of rape, this is not an empty possibility.  Consider that government funding is provided for abortion, in compliance with the Hyde Amendment, in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment.  What difference might it make to change our focus from a person being the victim of a crime, to being an accuser of a perpetrator?  I worry that this can lead people to think that one only becomes a victim after a perpetrator is convicted, and then what would be the consequences for access to abortion?

Conservative female voters would be wise to break ties with those conservative males who desire not only to dominate women's bodies but dictate the public perception of assaults against their bodies.  Of course this will never happen with womb control, fetal "personhood," and anti-choice extremists like Randall Terry dictating the national conversation.  (Pictured: Wingnut  Bobby Franklin.)