UK Rape TV
| By Emily - Dec 22nd, 2006 at 8:52 am EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
A new TV show in the UK puts 12 celebrities as jurors in a made up Celebrity rape trial. The fictional trial is of two footballers accused of gang-raping a 19-year old girl, Anna Crane. The Guardian reports:
This seems to be making a mockery of the judicial system, and on top of that, gives credence to the idea that women are often just crying rape when they really just wanted it.
Crane decides not to go to the police. Instead, her best friend sells the story of her alleged rape to a Sunday newspaper for £30,000 and covertly tapes Anna describing the assaults. This tape was played in court to the celebrity jury who have to make up their minds as to whether it is a harrowing confession or a fake tape concocted by two money-grabbing girls.
This seems to be making a mockery of the judicial system, and on top of that, gives credence to the idea that women are often just crying rape when they really just wanted it.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
If people are satisfied with the justice it dispenses, then there's no humor in mocking it, and the show will go bankrupt.
It's a self-policing thing.
As for "giving credence to the idea" that sometimes rape allegations are false, that's a pretty silly charge - since from what I can tell there is no general claim here, only the possibility that they might be false.
And guess what? In the real world, sometimes rape allegations are false. (Case in point: The Duke Rape case.)
Claiming that the show is "giving credence to something" is silly - a show that presents a rape as having 100% definitely happened is not "taking credence away" from the idea that sometimes people do lie about rape.
It sounds like a stupid show, but your complaints are somewhat ill-founded.
For one, what is the shows motive? The creators of the program say that it is to demystify the jury system; from the BBC: "It will be fascinating to follow the twists and turns of the case, see the dynamics and power struggles within the jury, learn about the jury system with its inherent flaws and strengths."
Now, if the desire is simply to depict the jury system and help the public understand its flaws and strengths, it seems like any fictional case could have been chosen. A murder, a theft, or a rape--a rape case in which the money grabbing of the rape victim was not the central point, which there are more than enough of. If "the programme-makers insist it is a serious attempt to lift the lid on the usually unseen deliberations of the jury room," why pick a subject that is really not the most realistic way to demonstrate how the jury system works, instead creating a case that portrays women in a demeaning and crass light, and will probably be very hurtful to rape victims who too often encounter "blame the victim" mentality. This goes beyond a stupid show: this particular situation was deliberately created with close attention to detail, and the result is disturbing and not a case that I would recommend people would learn about the jury system through.
Actually, I think a similar show that does legitimately point out the flaws of the legal system would be a good thing, because it does have plenty of flaws that could be well brought to life. This program, however, appears more likely to have an ulterior agenda.
Just for an added bonus, check out the great choice of jurors, exemplars that they are: "But the inclusion on the jury of the likes of former MP turned perjurer, Jeffrey Archer, and Stan Collymore, the former footballer involved in well-publicised domestic violence and "dogging" incidents, has already sparked concern about the motives of the programme-makers from rape charities and support groups."
This is called 'ad copy'. It tells us absolutely nothing about the reasons for making the show - which are more likely along the lines of "sex, scandal, and celebrity sells".
Taking the producer's words at face value tells us nothing.
Jeffrey Archer is a generally respectable guy even if he's had his bad moments. The scant time I've spent on his books was well invested.
I notice you didn't comment the fact that someone involved in a domestic violence scandal is deciding on the validity of a woman's testimony of abuse.
I don't see how the show is 'portraying rape victims in such a degrading light'. The only thesis offered from what I'm reading here is that rape victims are sometimes telling the truth and sometimes not - just as everyone in the world is.
If we can have shows about how people who claim to be victims of other crimes where the victims sometimes turn out to be liars, we can have it with regard to rape, too.
To be consistent, you'd have to argue that TV should never portray anyone falsely claiming to be a victim of crime, as such a thing is "degrading to the real victims of crime". I think we can all recognize that idea as silly on its face?
Uh... what is there to comment on? There's nothing good about that, but that just shows what a silly TV program it is. I don't think anyone is arguing that this is good TV. I responded to the name Jeffrey Archer because I felt you were being unfair to him by noting him in that context.