In the past week, between the abuse claims issued by Amber Heard against Johnny Depp, and the lenient sentencing of Stanford student Brock Turner after he raped an unconscious woman, a pervasive issue has come to light once again: the idea that we should consider an attacker's accomplishments and place in their society when a court, or the general public, considers a case.
Let’s look at Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, by far the higher profile of the two cases. When the news first came out that Heard had filed a restraining order against Depp, I made the mistake of wandering into the comments section of an article that had stated only the bare minimum of what had happened; Depp and Heard were getting a divorce, Heard was asking for a restraining order for alleged abuse, and that this had all unfolded two days after Depp’s mother's death. That was it. Already in that comments section were the standard, but nevertheless disturbing, staples of misogynistic commenters: victim shaming and assaults on Heard’s character and sexuality -- Heard is proudly bisexual -- as well as the seeds of the argument that Heard was faking the situation in order to get Depp’s significant wealth. As new information has come out about the situation, the noise surrounding it grows as well, and many many people have begun to call Heard a liar.
Via Coed.com
Believe it or not, the issue here isn’t just whether Depp did in fact attack Heard; that issue itself will be decided in a court of law, if Heard decides to press charges. The other matter here is the fact that when a woman stated that she had been abused, the first reaction was to call her a liar and to attack her character. That is not how abuse claims should be handled, high profile or not. The first reaction should be support for the person who has claimed abuse, and then qualified people should look into the case, not the jury of the internet. In the same sentence, those who are using the defense “innocent until proven guilty” are choosing to condemn Heard as a liar and an exploitative gold digger without evidence. The fact is, that false reports of domestic abuse are rare and every case should be treated with care and gravity.
Via People
However, another facet of the issue is the idea that Depp cannot be what Heard claims simply because he is a beloved star. Depp has money, fame, and has come off as a nice guy in the past, so why should the public believe someone they barely know? Depp’s a nice, white, talented guy with little criminal background. Depp’s status as a movie star far outweighs the idea that he could be an abuser. And as we’ve learned from many other cases, Depp’s career will probably come out the other side just fine.
But the use of social capital in these situations doesn’t just extend to celebrities. A moving court statement from a rape victim to her attacker was published on Buzzfeed this weekend, and shortly after, the attacker, Brock Turner, was sentenced to only six months in jail for his crimes, a sentence far below the three year minimum sentence for rape in California. Why was the sentence so lenient? The defense’s argument was that Brock’s accomplishments as a pre-olympic swimmer made him a valuable member of his community, and that being imprisoned would severely diminish his ability to follow that path.
Via StanfordDaily.com
We simply need to stop considering attackers,’ or even alleged attackers,’ accomplishments when it comes to their crimes. Being a good actor or athlete doesn't require being a good person as a prerequisite, and it is insulting to the victim that we should be able to overlook a crime in order to appease our own ideas about who a person is, or more aptly, who we want them to be.
