Missoula: Considering the Act

"Is there an act to be considered?" is a great question to ask when any rape is brought to attention. Should you automatically believe the victim, the perpetrator, or do neither of those exist? Throughout Missoula, defense attorneys, defendants, and defenders of defendants try to play this question out when referring to their case. For most rape victim activists, this question does not even enter their mind. It's hard to believe that a victim would make up a story just for attention, although I realize that this does occur on occasion (a very small, almost never occurring occasion). If the victim is automatically questioned for validity, what is this telling this victim and future victims? That they will always be questioned if their act happened? Maybe this is why the number of reported rapes is much smaller than the number of rapes that actually occur.

In chapter 11 of Missoula, Krakauer explains that a rape case including Beau Donaldson (perpetrator) and Allison Huguet (victim) covered the newspapers, along with other rape cases, for six months. This means that rape was occurring fairly often, and actually being reported, probably because Huguet decided to tell the police about her experience with Donaldson. Krakauer goes on to say that two victims, Kerry Berrett and Kaitlynn Kelly, were being ignored by the police and their perpetrators were not being prosecuted. The police refused to validate their stories and considered too highly on the perpetrator's end of the spectrum, ignoring the fact that this could have happened and only focussing on the possibility that it didn't happen and they might indict someone who is innocent.

In chapter 12, Cecilia Washburn reported a rape by Jordan Johnson. Washburn was urged by her friend to go to the Women's clinic, where she did end up going and received an exam that could be used in a court case against Johnson. The exam was painful and showed obvious signs of sexual assault. The police decided to send a formal letter to the assailant, Jordan Johnson, and invite him to be expelled if he was found guilty. In this case, the police did not consider if this crime happened or not; they believed Washburn as a credible being and allowed for her perpetrator to be called to court.

So, in what case are rape victims deemed credible or not? Why are some victims believed over others? Krakauer doesn't really go into detail about that, but he does provide sufficient evidence about what makes a case stronger against another case. For instance, Washburn was taken straight to he Women's clinic and checked out for injuries and/or Male DNA. But to what extent is a victim blamed just for telling their story? If a victim comes forward to a police station, why aren't they given the same respect as, say, a person who reports a car stolen? Why is rape such a hard thing to believe?....