The Depp-Heard Trial Shows the Barriers Survivors Still Face

After practically seven weeks within the courtroom, a jury has reached a verdict in Johnny Depp’s defamation lawsuit in opposition to Amber Heard. He gained. On-line, his supporters are rejoicing, insisting that his victory vindicates all males “falsely” accused and serves as proof that the #MeToo motion went too far.

However the verdict is definitely proof the #MeToo motion hasn’t gone far sufficient.

The explanation so many ladies needed to say #MeToo is due to moments like this one. Survivors who come ahead concerning the violence they’ve endured are sometimes blamed as a substitute of believed. Harassed as a substitute of supported. They’re punished for sharing their tales, betrayed by the very techniques which might be supposed to guard them. The #MeToo motion raised our consciousness about these injustices and helped us empathize with survivors, however, to date, there was little or no structural change to the techniques that so predictably damage victims.

Learn Extra: How Superstar Instances Just like the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial Have Formed the Nationwide Dialog About Abuse

And in Depp v. Heard, a few of the structural inequalities within the American authorized system had been plainly on show. The obvious instance of how the authorized system is stacked in opposition to survivors in cross-examination. Whereas Individuals herald cross-examination because the gold commonplace of searching for reality, scientific research discover that it truly obscures the details in sexual-violence instances. The hostility of cross-examination typically produces traumatic signs in survivors that may impede their skill to recall particulars of the violence they endured, particularly in the event that they face questions that draw on victim-blaming tropes. Consequently, survivors might wrestle to focus or inform a coherent story, which retains essential data from reaching the jury. In distinction, researchers discover that trauma-informed interview strategies that depend on open-ended questions and create a secure, snug setting for survivors usually tend to produce an correct narrative of what came about that may be corroborated (or refuted) by the remainder of the physique of proof.

A failure to acknowledge survivors’ trauma isn’t the one downside with a transparent answer in our authorized system. Survivors additionally face distinctive burdens in coming ahead that aren’t shared by different victims of crime. Most often, character proof is taken into account irrelevant by our courts. As a result of it is irrelevant. Somebody can attend church each week and nonetheless drive drunk. Somebody generally is a good soccer participant and nonetheless begin a bar struggle. Somebody generally is a punctual worker at one job and nonetheless steal from the money register at one other. In trials for different kinds of crimes, judges are reluctant to permit a defendant to parade their associates and households earlier than the court docket as a result of we acknowledge that they’re more likely to take their cherished one’s aspect, no matter their guilt or innocence. Until they had been a bystander to the occasion in query, they don’t have anything to contribute to the case.

Learn Extra: Why You’re Seeing So Many Johnny Depp Defenders on TikTok

We make an exception, nevertheless, for instances involving sexual assault and intimate companion violence. We enable the lads accused to convey ex-girlfriends, moms, coaches, monks, and even paid workers to testify that they’re good folks. We additionally enable them to smear the reputations of their victims, digging deep into their previous to discover a disgruntled former roommate or an estranged member of the family who is keen to tarnish their credibility. We be taught nothing about whether or not violence did or didn’t happen from any of those witnesses, however their testimony biases juries in opposition to sticking to the details of the case.

There are different kinds of irrelevant proof that dominate gender-based violence instances, too. For instance, sexual-assault victims recurrently discover their credibility in query in the event that they refuse a forensic examination (identified popularly as a “rape package”). Nevertheless, these invasive, re-traumatizing exams hardly ever produce any helpful proof for survivors. Forensic exams had been designed to determine an unknown perpetrator via the gathering of DNA, however most survivors already know precisely who sexually assaulted them. If their perpetrator acknowledges any sexual contact occurred—and most do—then a rape package is basically rendered ineffective. It was merely a burden we count on victims to endure to report—a “second rape” by the authorized system that we count on they tolerate for us to imagine their tales.

And, after all, we now are nicely conscious {that a} survivor who can’t by some means overcome all of those disadvantages within the felony justice system can face a defamation lawsuit within the civil courts.

Learn Extra: I Based ‘Me Too’ in 2006. The Morning It Went Viral Was a Nightmare

There are easy reforms we might make to the authorized system to start to dismantle the benefits we give perpetrators—like utilizing trauma-informed questioning of survivors and ending exceptions for character proof—and we ought to implement commonsense modifications that will ease the burdens on survivors. Nevertheless, these issues are removed from the one causes that our authorized system is so dangerous. It’s dehumanizing to be handled like a supporting character in a court docket case narrowly targeted on whether or not a perpetrator ought to be punished. Many survivors are wanting to create new interventions on violence that deal with victims like individuals who deserve security and assist, as a substitute of proof to be evaluated.

In recent times, requires restorative justice have gained recognition amongst feminists who wish to heart the survivor—and never their perpetrator—in our social response to gender-based violence. And for good cause. The method is extra targeted on repairing hurt than doling out punishment and particularly prioritizes survivors’ therapeutic and restitution. Within the aftermath of a trial like Depp v. Heard, we’re reminded that lots of survivors’ wants can’t be met by the American felony justice system. It might’t promise security or pace. It slows down survivors’ therapeutic as a substitute of facilitating it.

We’d like a change.

Depp v. Heard doesn’t show that #MeToo went too far. It’s a chilling reminder that we are able to lose all of our hard-earned positive aspects if we don’t pair empathy for survivors with constructing a brand new system that may lastly supply victims justice.

Extra Should-Learn Tales From TIME

Contact us at


Related Articles

Back to top button