After a sexual assault or rape, victims are often subjected to scrutiny and mistreatment. Victims who decide to report their assaults to law enforcement undergo medical examinations and are interviewed by police. If there is a criminal trial, victims suffer a loss of privacy, and their credibility may be challenged. Victims may also become the target of slut-shaming, abuse, social stigmatization, sexual slurs and cyberbullying. These factors, contributing to a rape culture, are among some of the reasons that may contribute up to 80% of all rapes going unreported in the U.S., according to a 2016 study done by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Various laws have been created with a motive to protect victims. During criminal proceedings, publication bans and rape shield laws protect victims from excessive public scrutiny. Laws may also prohibit defense lawyers from obtaining a victim's medical, psychiatric or therapeutic records. Statutory rape laws set the age of legal consent for sexual activity and prohibits perpetrators from alleging the victim consented to the activity. Victims in some jurisdictions can seek damages from police and institutions if warnings were not issued. Numerous victims' rights groups operate to improve the treatment of victims.
Examination and investigation of victim
Medical examination and "rape kits"
Following a rape, a victim may seek medical care and obtain a medical examination that obtains and preserves physical evidence. Examiners may collect fingernail scrapings and pluck head and pubic hairs. If the facility has the means the examiner will also take photographs of genital injuries. A 'rape kit' contains the items used by medical personnel for gathering and preserving physical evidence.
Many "rape kits" are untested because they are never submitted to crime labs or because crime labs have insufficient resources to test all of the submitted kits. In the United States, national surveys of law enforcement agencies suggest there may be upwards of 200,000 untested rape kits in 2015.
The Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016 enacted by the United States federal government gives victims the right to: request the preservation of sexual assault evidence collection kit or its probative contents; have the sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved, without charge, for the duration of the maximum applicable statute of limitations or 20 years, whichever is shorter; and be informed of any result of a sexual assault evidence collection kit, including a DNA profile match, toxicology report, or other information collected as part of a medical forensic examination, if the disclosure would not impede or compromise an ongoing investigation.
In 2019, the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2019 was enacted to provide funding to help eliminate backlogs in rape kit testing. More than 100,000 rape kits in the United States remain untested.
Acknowledgement of victim's courage by police Police may acknowledge and thank victims for coming forward in sexual assault cases, noting that reporting assaults is incredibly difficult and takes a great deal of courage.
Interview by police As part of police investigations, victims are interviewed by police. The interview is usually recorded, and a transcript may be prepared.
If police believe the reported victim is making a false accusation of rape, they may interrogate that person as a suspect rather than a victim. In some cases, harsh questioning and social stigmatization has caused even actual victims of rape to recant and then be charged with making a false report.
Treatment of Victims during Court hearings A study done in Australia by the Crime Statistics Agency revealed that most reports of sexual assault to the Police do not make it past the initial stage, with "police identifying an offender for half of incidents reported to them and charging an offender for one in four".
If rape accusations reported to the police head to trial, further questioning and public scrutiny may impact on a victim's recovery and compound their trauma. Typically, the cross-examination will scrutinize the “reliability of the witness, the plausibility of an alleged assault or the credibility or consistency of evidence”.
Australian Criminologist Dr. Andy Kaladelfos says that the treatment of sexual assault survivors during trials is worse than it was during the 1950s in Australia. Dr. Kaladelfos says this treatment is one of the reasons many drop their cases before or during the trial, with many describing the experience akin to reliving the experience or “another rape”. Victims are asked to describe in detail the experience, as well as personal information such as what clothes they were wearing, and other unrelated information not directly involved in the incident, such as their background and relationship history. Questions like these are typically only directed at the victims, and can confuse, mislead, or intimidate victims, Dr. Kaladelfos says. The length of defendant cross-examination questioning has risen by approximately 30% since the 1950s - in the case of child case examinations, they are now three times as long. He cites one child victim who was asked 1,000 questions during a cross-examination.
Confidentiality, harassment, smear campaigns and silencing
In Canada, pursuant to sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code defence counsel are not allowed to obtain a victim's medical, psychiatric or therapeutic records . The prohibition was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada even though it limited the accused ability to provide a full answer and defence; see R. v Mills.
An accused may hire a private investigator to investigate and harass a victim. For example, according to the complaint in the civil lawsuit against Penn State University, Nate Parker hired a private investigator to investigate and harass an 18-year-old student. The student alleged she was raped by Parker and another student. The harassment included exposing the victim's identity by posting enlarged photos of the victim around the university campus. The lawsuit against Penn State was settled for $17,500. (Parker was found not guilty of the rape charges. The student attempted suicide three months after the assault and died by suicide at age 30.)
Institutions may attempt to cover up sexual abuse, as seen in the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. The movie Spotlight deals with the coverup of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.
Dennis Hastert allegedly promised to pay $5 million to his victim in exchange for agreeing not to discuss the sexual assaults he committed.
Authorities may fail to investigate allegations of sexual assault because the victims are perceived to be unreliable witnesses. The BBC One miniseries Three Girls deals with the systematic sexual abuse of young girls by a group of older Asian men in Rochdale. Authorities were slow to respond even though more than 100 referrals were made to the police and social services.
Harvey Weinstein dispatched defense lawyers and publicists to undermine the credibility of his accusers.
Campus sexual assault victims
In the United States, various legislation, government agencies, and initiatives have been created to deal with campus sexual assault. These include:
White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault Title IX requires schools receiving federal funds to protect students from gender-based violence and harassment—including sexual assault. The Office for Civil Rights investigates Title IX sexual violence complaints. The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA) is a United States bill to reform the sexual assault investigation process and protect victims. CASA includes a requirement that colleges and universities publish statistics relating to crime on their campuses. The Safe Campus Act is proposed U.S. legislation that would require schools to report allegations of sexual assault to law enforcement, but only if the victim consents. However, if the victim does not consent the statute prohibits schools from initiating their own internal disciplinary procedures.
The Hunting Ground is a critically acclaimed American documentary film about the incidence of sexual assault on college campuses in the United States. Its creators say college administrations are failing to respond adequately to claims of sexual assault, while its critics have countered that the film was based on misleading statistics and biased against the alleged perpetrator.
Sexual assault victims in the military
Sexual assault in the military is more prevalent than outside of the military, and it is frequently underreported. In the United States, Sexual Assault Prevention Response is a training program designated to educate military service members and provide support and treatment to service members and their families. Individuals are assigned to an advocate, who assists them with the different treatment options that are available to them and educates them about their rights.
In 2019 Department of Defense reported a 50 per cent increase in assaults on military women over a two-year period. The department recognized a need for better training and identification of repeat offenders, however throwing money at the problem has not produced results. Legislative efforts to create an independent prosecutor were opposed by military lobbyists concerned that it would erode command authority. Without independent prosecutors most punishment and disciplining is left to the discretion of commanders.
Sexual assault of prisoners
The Prison Rape Elimination Act is United States legislation enacted for the purpose of preventing sexual assaults in U.S. prisons. The legislation requires reporting and information gathering.
Publication bans, duty to warn and censorship
Bans on publishing the victim's name
In the United States, laws prohibiting the publication of a victim's name have been found to be unconstitutional and struck down.New Directions from the Field: Victims Rights and Services for the 21st Century (Chapter 13), accessed October 16, 2012. In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a Georgia statute that imposed civil liability on media for publishing a rape victim's name was unconstitutional. The Court stated: "the First and Fourteenth Amendments command nothing less than that the States may not impose sanctions on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection." Also see Florida Star v. B. J. F., and State of Florida v. Globe Communications Corp., 648 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1994).
In Canada, the Canadian Press generally does not publish the names of alleged sexual assault victims without their consent. In addition, a court order may operate to prohibit publication. Pursuant to paragraph 486.4(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, the court may make an order "directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness" not be published, broadcast or transmitted for any sexual offences. The victim has the option of waiving the publication ban.
Bans on publishing names of accused juveniles
In cases where the accused is under 18 years of age, the court may impose a publication ban to protect the privacy of the offender.
After 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich pursued a case against two teenage boys for sexual assault, the court initially prohibited anyone from discussing the case. Dietrich was threatened by the accused to be found in contempt when she published the names of the perpetrators on social media, but the court then clarified that no "gag order" was in place.
In Canada, the section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act generally prohibits the publication of the name of the offender if the offender was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence.
Duty to warn the public