Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers'

WASHINGTON -- A Republican state legislator in Georgia doesn't like the term rape "victim." In fact, he has introduced a bill mandating that state criminal codes refer to these people as, simply, "accusers" -- until there's a conviction in the matter.

The legislation introduced by state Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta) would cover a number of crimes including rape, stalking and domestic violence:

To amend Titles 16 and 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal law and criminal procedure, respectively, so as to change the term "victim" to the term "accuser" in the context of a number of statutes making reference to circumstances where there has not yet been a criminal conviction; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

With Franklin's changes suggestions, the criminal code looks something like this:

Rape and sexual assault are chronically underreported crimes. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, "60% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police, according to a statistical average of the past 5 years. Those rapists, of course, never spend a day in prison. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 6% of rapists ever serve a day in jail." Under Franklin's definition, all of these people who didn't report their crimes aren't actually victims -- because there is never a conviction.

"To be classified, off the bat, as an accuser instead of as a victim places one more barrier to reporting the crime to the authorities," writes Amie Newman at RH Reality Check, who points out that Franklin's state of Georgia ranks 11th out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for incidences of forcible rape.

Jennifer White, attorney for legal programs at the Family Violence Prevention Fund, said that even when victims do come forward, prosecutions and convictions are still often incredibly difficult to get.

"Changing, just for these particular crimes, the word 'victim' to 'accuser' really buys into an outdated and disproved myth about victims who come forward with these kinds of allegations," said White. "I think it's a sad reality that for some reason, it's easier for society, in some respects, to believe that a victim would fabricate this type of crime than to believe that a person is capable of committing certain atrocities. And it really has a chilling effect for victims who already have an extremely difficult time coming forward."

Franklin did not respond to a request for comment.

After significant criticism this past week, House Republicans dropped language from legislation sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) that would have redefined rape in a bill prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. While federal law has traditionally exempted restrictions on abortion access for women who were victims of rape or incest, the Smith bill would have narrowed the definition to "forcible" rape.

UPDATE, 4:10 p.m.: The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee writes, "To diminish a victim's ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill."

Comments

[coptic777]

10:05 PM on 03/14/2011

Quote : Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape? says, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.”

Quote:Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with “scary frequency.” As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial Silverman noted that “any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes.” According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false

[Lissa Oakes]

05:56 PM on 02/27/2011

Are the Republicans selling berkas now?? http://berkadesign.com/3801.html

[Kennon Gilson]

08:28 PM on 02/24/2011

The guy has some real goofy legislative humdingers and his blog site saying that people have NO individual rights is a gem--until you realize the purportedly liberal Democrats and GOP moderates are about as bad, such as measures denying people have no natural right to practice medicine, something maybe not seen since the Middle Ages codes against Jewish healers, and it gets nuttier from there...just check out the State site.

The fact is a lot of legislators around the country need a course on basic rights IMO. They, and we, should not conceive their jobs as discovering new ways of denying rights and coming up with new crimes, rules, taxes and punishments and better exactly nothing.

[JStrommen]

05:16 PM on 02/21/2011

imho, being labeled a 'victim' isn't a good thing either. just because you're a 'victim' doesn't make you less of a person than another. i think it's a good step to redefine the term. it doesn't mean it didn't happen to you. it's just telling that person that what happened to you does not make you who you are.

[hilda 77]

05:43 AM on 02/23/2011

Let's be clear. First of all, he isn't saying any other victim is not a victim; it only applies to crimes of sexual assault (most often carried out on women). Secondly, he is effectively and LITERALLY calling rape a victimless crime.

The message is, if someone forces you into a sexual act, it's not that bad; the assailant has a right to do it. He is saying victims should take it lying down. He really seems to believe that women will take this lying down. Ask yourself if you're prepared to do that.

[MizLiz]

03:43 PM on 02/21/2011

I'm not surprised at any of this. Don't forget - Georgia is in the "Bible Belt", where churches stress the wife must "submit" to the husband. Men have a free pass, women should stay at home in the kitchen.

Any man who spouts this nonsense ought to be cut off at the pockets....then he won't have to worry about "accusers".

[A Las]

01:03 PM on 02/21/2011

You mean they want men to have A PRESUMPTION INNOCENCE???? Wow, that is shocking! Especially after Duke Lacrosse.

We're not just automatically going to believe false rape accusers any more? How demeaning to women! Meanwhile THOUSANDS OF FALSELY ACCUSED MEN are in prison!

[hilda 77]

05:50 AM on 02/23/2011

I think it's more like we want women to have a presumption of innocence. Despite your shrill protest, men do get a presumption of innocence ALREADY.

"Thousands of falsely accused men are in prison!"? Sounds slightly shrill. Where do you get your figures? Facts and statistics, please.

Why aren't you protesting the fact that victims of burglary would still be called "burglary victims" thereby automatically presuming the burglars are guilty. Why are you turning your back on the THOUSANDS OF FALSELY ACCUSED MEN BURGLARS in prison?

[Clarence Woodworth]

07:09 PM on 02/23/2011

Actually, yes, it's a rather easy bet that a good 20 percent of all inmates in prison for whatever crime are not guilty. Anyone who looks at the cases the Innocence project takes, follows the cases enough to see how many states are only paying lip service to true due process and notes how many cases the innocence project refuses to take because they don't have the resources would know this. Also, people are often convicted of crimes on either testimony eyewitness statements based on flawed conducting of lineups (easy enough to google lineup procedures and find this stuff out yourself) and this has taken effect over such a long period of time and in many jurisdictions it would be a very big surprise if a significant number of people weren't wrongly convicted.

By the way, here's the False Rape Society blog. They link to studies and things if you are interested in false rape accusations.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

[hilda 77]

07:46 PM on 02/20/2011

Given the hardships American people are facing, why is their representative spending his time in public service doing this? Is he or someone he knows planning to rape someone?
Which people, exactly,would this serve?

[MizLiz]

03:45 PM on 02/21/2011

It serves Republicans, of course. Because one of their unstated goals is to exert complete control over women. Look at any religion. they're all thought up by men, and this is the first and primary goal.

[Clarence Woodworth]

11:57 AM on 02/22/2011

I'll be sure to bring your brilliant observations that religious women don't count (my dad was an atheist, it was my mom who took me to church) and that all religions are merely plots by men to keep the lil ladies down to the appropriate religious scholars. These thoughts of yours will surely revolutionize the field.

[hilda 77]

05:33 AM on 02/23/2011

Thank you for replying, MizLiz. I did mean to ask that question, specifically. And generally yours is part of the right answer but I put my question that way because: it IS protecting rapists, etc. - I'm making no bones about that - and I want to know why he wants to make it easier for them (I truly do want to know his reasons); and it's wrong that the focus of sexual crimes is always on victims - a clumsy, if not brutish and salacious misappropriation of light (glare) on her and the sexual act (and, in a weird way, it's as if she continues to be raped - I speak as a rape victim*). The perpetrator of assault is never exposed as nakedly after the fact as the victim. Bobby Franklin is making a stand for perpetrators of sexual assault and against its victims (who are usually women) and it's important that he is exposed and seen in that light.
*Ironically, or perhaps symptomatically, my reasoning will be discredited by that "admission" - isn't it bad enough already? Apparently not.

[Clarence Woodworth]

11:58 AM on 02/22/2011

Soooooo let me see if I have this correctly:

It serves the American peoples financial interests to make false accusations of rape easier with prejudicial legal language and rules.....how?

[rockxaction]

11:04 PM on 02/19/2011

Another instance of the Republican war on women and our rights. This is both disgusting, and demeaning to rape survivors.

[derekdj]

10:21 PM on 02/19/2011

In case nobody has been able to put 2 + 2 together this is ALL part of the conservative strategy to abolish or make extremely difficult abortions. First by intimidation and violence against abortion clinics, next the dismantling of Planned Parenthood and now closing all the loopholes that would allow women to receive an abortion (ex, RAPE). There are those on the right who want don't consider incest a reason for abortion. By not allowing victims to be called victims there's not reason to allow them seek abortions and by the time a trial comes about it would be too late to seek out an abortion. These are all linked folks, don't kid yourselves.

[MizLiz]

03:45 PM on 02/21/2011

Fx2

you nailed it.

[Clarence Woodworth]

11:55 AM on 02/22/2011

This would be funny if it wasn't so paranoid, conflating a Republican Bill in the House -which doesn't have a chance in heck of being passed in the Senate- with a lawmaker in Georgia's attempt to make the terminology in laws morally neutral.

I suppose I should accuse you of wanting to let any woman or man anytime he or she wants to accuse another person of rape and have them convicted without a trial. That makes as much sense as your comment above.

[Woolworthcat]

09:39 PM on 02/19/2011

Exactly Abby. Sorry folks, I'm a liberal like you so you shouldn't be surprised I put a premium on justice. This proposition is designed to serve truth and justice, not undermine women. The system as currently designed, which provides anonymity to the accuser while presuming guilt with the "victim" characterization, fosters false allegations.

No one is saying that most claims are false. But our system is supposed to protect at all costs those who are falsely accused whether by the woman or a prosecutor. Whether the accusation is the product of mistake or intent, it happens. Eliminating the highly prejudicial "victim" characterization until conviction is a very reasonable safeguard that promotes the integrity of criminal justice, protects the innocent but does NOT undermine the ability to prosecute legitimate crimes.

[MizLiz]

03:47 PM on 02/21/2011

Considering what awaits the rape victim in court, I hardly think there are many false accusations. This is a typical male whine. Not worthy of listening to.

[Clarence Woodworth]

11:52 AM on 02/22/2011

Care to tell me "what awaits the rape victim in court" with Rape Shield laws?

[pbcrunch]

04:32 PM on 02/19/2011

There is a perfectly good compromise term for how the law can recognize this class of people: "alleged victims." Once the "alleged rapist" is convicted of rape, the "alleged victim" becomes the "victim."

Voila.

[pbcrunch]

04:24 PM on 02/19/2011

That's because in the Republican world, if the "accuser" just didn't dress so seductively, nothing would have happened to her.

[pepperATL]

11:48 AM on 02/19/2011

I used to work with rape victims at an Atlanta hospital. They weren't seeking medical treatment because they were "accusers", but because of injuries and STD exposure from being actually raped. Calling them victims doesn't convict anybody, but calling them accusers presumes a suspicion about their claims that something has happened to their bodies.
Anyone accused of rape is already called the accused, not a rapist or criminal, until convicted. Why should we treat victims as they are suspect until proven victims?

[ccurtis]

01:34 AM on 02/11/2011

What a pathetic coward. Singling out all sex crime victims for special stigmatization because a small minority of men have been falsely accused by a small minority of women. Never mind the fact that false accusations cut both ways and involve all crimes.

Sex involves risk. One can eliminate that risk in all sorts of ways. But no one has any business trying to eliminate that risk by stigmatizing a select group of crime victims and making it more difficult for them to get justice. That is avoiding person responsibility in the worst kind of way. This guy seriously needs to grow up and a pair.

[Clarence Woodworth]

06:04 AM on 02/12/2011

Shaming language?
That's not really an argument.

I support this move simply because somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of all rape reports are false and too many people otherwise tend to forget that just because someone claims something happened, it doesn't mean it did.

This doesn't change the law in any way, shape, or form. All it does is make the language of the states laws and policies morally neutral. Considering rape victims and alleged victims get special services(Victim's advocates), have special laws written for them (Fed Rule of Evidence 413, Rape shield, VAWA money, some states don't let news organizations name them etc.) while the accused usually have their names and pictures splashed all over your local television an newspaper, I don't think its too much to ask.

[ccurtis]

09:20 PM on 02/12/2011

Going after a demographic of people as a response to the bad behavior of a minority is pathetic and cowardly. This applies to legislators when they put their cowardice into legislative action.

Rape is the most unreported crime in the US. The FBI has found 8% of reported rapes unfounded. Not false, unfounded. Yes, some think just because someone makes a claim it is true, including claims of false accusations.

Stigmatizing people can change the way laws are applied which is the point of this legislation. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. Rape Victims get special stigmatization even without such absurd legislation so they get special services. “She deserves rape” cannot be used as a defense, hence rape shield laws. It is not too much to ask for. And those accused of the most unreported crime in the US can’t have their sexual history used by the prosecution, including former rapes, either. Rightly so.

People accused of all crimes can be treated unfairly, like many on death row in America, but to single out and stigmatize entire groups of people as a remedy is a cowardly solution.

[sinpareil]

04:12 PM on 02/19/2011

10 - 20%?

You are such a liar.

Not to mention that even if that statistic was true (which it's not), it fails to take into account that 60%+ of all rapes are unreported. So, 20% of 20% is...oh... 4% of the total, even if the false accusation statistics were that high.

[Real Dood]

06:30 PM on 02/09/2011

I agree with the proposal to change the language. You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Right now the language condemns you with just an accusation.
Furthermore, I believe the current method NAMES the accused based entirely on the statement from the ACCUSER. That should be changed. If they are going to name the accused, then they should also name the accuser. No more hiding behind current protocol to "protect the accuser". That is baloney!!

Name the accuser if you name the accused.
If you cannot name the accuser, then DO NOT name the accused!!!

[Walter Kovacs]

07:48 PM on 02/10/2011

I agree with your last statement. The problem I think the Senator was trying to address was that of the ACCUSED man: His identity is known before he is convicted, and he faces just as many stigmas as a woman who says she has been raped. Think about it from the perspective of an innocent man who has been accused of rape. However, calling someone a rape "accuser" instead of a rape "victim" seems to be belittling the tragedy that happened to them: it opens up the possibility that maybe they were not raped. But the true difference between rape and murder, as some comments below this seem to try to obscure, is that at the end of a murder or mass-murder, you have a body (or bodies). You can tell from trajectory points and exit wounds the person didn't do it to themselves. Rape isn't quite as clear cut.

It still stands that calling someone who claims to be a rape victim an "accuser" might actually prevent legitimate rape victims from coming forward, so it definitely is not a good idea to do so. Instead, it seems that the person ACCUSED of the crime should be afforded the same courtesies as the rape VICTIM: namely, their identities should be withheld from public dissemination. Papers don't print rape victims' names, and they shouldn't print the names of ACCUSED rapists until after a conviction. As someone below quoted, " whats good for the goose..."

[pepperATL]

11:56 AM on 02/19/2011

This post doesn't make any sense. Perhaps Real Dood is confusing newspaper policies with Georgia laws.

Calling someone a victim does not thereby condemn any particular person. For instance, identifying a corpse as a murder victim does not identify the murderer. Moreover, the words murder and rape sometimes suggest something about the intention of the violent agent. However, a victim can end up raped or murdered without anyone "intending" to rape or murder. The victim is a victim nonetheless, regardless of whether anyone in particular is accused or convicted of the crime. Can't we just recognize victims as victims without getting protective of the imagined accused?