The Oct. 31 story “Washington Supreme Court shifts the burden in rape cases; Ruling: Defendant can’t be required to prove consent,” contains a pertinent controversy. On paper, this judicial restraint seems reasonable in that the pressure of guilt falls on the prosecutor. In practice, this decision not only denies countless victims of justice, but perpetuates rape culture. Because of this, fewer victims will step up, and even fewer offenders will be convicted.
We live in a rape culture where rape is normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. This would cause many jurors to blame the victim’s actions rather than make the rapist take responsibility. Skimpy clothing, flirting, previous situations of consent tend to give people the impression that it isn’t rape. While California takes a step out of this mind-set with “yes means yes,” Washington falls deeper into it by shifting burden.
I find it interesting that within the article, women, who are statistically more than five times more likely to experience rape, spoke against while the only person quoted in favor of this was a man; though I do recognize that attorneys Emily Cordo and Gregory Link, who are quoted in the story, have objectives (and opposing ones at that). Even more interesting is the 6-3 ruling in favor is also the ratio of female to male judges, which seems backwards.
Shiann Roark
Vancouver
