“The right small human intervention in an unstable political system can sooner or later have large complex reverberations,” Catharine A. MacKinnon explains in her book Butterfly Politics, which outlines how even seemingly small discursive moments can systemically transform legal systems and work to rid them of gender inequalities (MacKinnon 1). Contemporary US legal discourse, particularly in cases of sexual violence, has traditionally and continually favored a dominant heterosexual male perspective. Through this, victims’ voices are repeatedly silenced, the public’s perception of what constitutes sexual violence is problematically shifted, verdicts in legal processes concerning sexual violence are unfairly impacted, and focus is shifted away from uprooting larger structures of gender inequality (Larson 126). Victim impact statements in cases of sexual violence can function as the “small human intervention” MacKinnon explains, and work to dismantle oppressive structures in legal systems that routinely ignore and blame victims.
In Martha Chamallas’s piece “Will Tort Law Have Its #MeToo Movement?” she explains how tort law contains sexual exceptionalism which treats injuries “linked to or embedded in sexual or other intimate relationships as qualitatively different from other forms of violence and harm.” Through sexual exceptionalism, courts disadvantage “the singled-out group”, victims of sexual violence in the instance of this paper, and this treatment can allow for segregation which enables gender bias (Chamallas 24). Gender biases in the legal system directly violate victims of sexual violence’s human rights. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” (United Nations). The silencing of victims in favor of a male perpetrator’s perspective places victims on unequal footing, disadvantaging them and taking away their right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 10. Through victim impact statements, victims can work to fight these oppressive structures and the silence forced upon them, and ensure that members of the court hear their voices.
Victim impact statements are accounts delivered prior to sentencing that outline harm caused to victims by the offending party. In cases of sexual violence, victims often detail their experience and how trauma has impacted them in their life following the crime. These are powerful rhetorical tools that allow members of the court to gain clearer insight into the victim’s perspective. Despite the significance of victim impact statements in legal processes concerning sexual violence, they are often confidential and difficult to access. Because of this, there have been limitations on access and therefore little research to investigate how the statements function (Bartels and Davies 5). This paper plans to explore how victim impact statements function to disrupt traditional favoring of male perspectives and victim blaming present in US legal systems, and work to reclaim victims’ human rights that are violated by contemporary US legal discourse. I will be analyzing four sexual violence victim impact statements from Chanel Miller, Jennifer Wheatley, Aly Raisman, and Kaylee Lorincz and looking at how their rhetorical elements work to disrupt dominant male perspectives in legal discourse and call out institutions of power which enable sexual violence.
On January 17th of 2015, Chanel Miller, previously known as Emily Doe, was raped by Brock Turner while unconscious after a party at Stanford University. At Brock Turner’s sentencing in her victim impact statement Miller provided a detailed account of the assault’s circumstances and her experience in the time that followed the evening of January 17th. Miller’s victim impact statement garnered widespread public attention (as did the trial), likely due to its strong rhetorical features and resonance with survivors of sexual violence.
Jennifer Wheatley delivered a victim impact statement directed at William Joseph Trice, a stranger who raped her in 1988. This case remained cold for 21 years while Trice walked freely. Wheatley had planned to deliver this speech at Trice’s sentencing, however was unable to because Trice committed suicide six days after being convicted of first and second degree rape, first and second degree sexual assault, and burglary. Despite Trice committing suicide, Wheatley was still able to share her victim impact statement in January of 2010.
Aly Raisman and Kaylee Lorincz are two of 156 victims who came forward and delivered victim impact statements during the sentencing hearing of Larry Nassar. Nassar was a USA Gymnastics national team doctor and a Michigan State University physician, who committed acts sexual abuse to young girls and women for decades under the disguise of medical care. Nassar’s abuse was perpetuated and protected by his status as a medical professional and enabled by authorities and institutions that chose to look away. In January of 2018, 156 victims took to court, delivering personal testimonies outlining their experiences and the lasting effects Nassar’s abuse has had on them (Stenberg 45). This paper plans to analyze rhetorical strengths in all four of these statements; I will be looking into how the statements utilize pathos and visceral rhetoric, acknowledge the power of a collective, recognize their perpetrator’s conviction status, use examples of career aspirations and success, and call attention to the systems and individuals which enabled abuse and aided their attackers.
Pathos is a strong rhetorical tool which helps display a speaker’s emotions to their audience. Krista McCormack explains the power of emotion in utilizing pathos in courtroom discourse saying, “Completely void of the influence of emotion, those engaging in legal reasoning are rendered incapable of, or severely handicapped in their efforts at placing themselves in the shoes of litigants”. Pathos allows the audience to see a clearer, more accurate view of a situation by giving them a glimpse into the speaker’s perspective and emotion. The absence or expulsion of pathos in discourse can even “produce legal judgments that are shallow, routinized, devaluative, and even irresponsible” (McCormack 140). The usage of pathos in all four victim impact statements allows the audience to place themselves in the victims’ situation and “feel” the same pain through their emotion.
Chanel Miller displays pathos when she says, “My independence, natural joy, gentleness, and steady lifestyle I had been enjoying became distorted beyond recognition. I became closed off, angry, self-deprecating, tired, irritable, empty. The isolation at times was unbearable.” Here, Miller explains how after being raped she became a different person and there was a shift in her personality to a point beyond recognition. Through showing her emotions in the time following the sexual violence, the audience is able to grasp, to a degree, an understanding of the serious impacts rape has on a victim.
Jennifer Wheatley similarly displays pathos saying, “I spent a few years after you raped me letting my fear of you rule my life. I was bent on self-destruction. I felt afraid and angry because of what you had done to me and what you would do to other women if you were not stopped.” This excerpt shows how fear lingered in Wheatley’s life for years following the rape. With this display of pathos, the audience is given the ability to place themselves in Wheatley’s shoes and understand the toll rape has taken on her life.
Lorincz provides a description of Nassar’s assaults on her and how this emotionally impacted her saying, “You made everyday conversation while you were assaulting me. As well as comments to me which I will never forget. ‘How does this feel?’ and ‘Does this make you feel better, Kaylee?’ I only said yes, holding back my tears, pain, and disgust, in hopes that you would stop.” This excerpt from Lorincz’s statement helps to emphasize just how Nassar went about assaulting her as a child, and the deep emotional response she had to the violation. Her rhetorically strong usage of pathos allows the audience to see themselves in her position, and understand the fear, anger, and sadness Nassar’s abuse forced onto her.
“Lying on my stomach with you on my bed, insisting that your inappropriate touch would help to heal my pain. The reality is you caused me a great deal of physical, mental, and emotional pain. You never healed me. You took advantage of our passions and our dreams,” Raisman delivered in her victim impact statement. Similarly to Lorincz, Raisman explains what Nassar did and how his abuse led to her feeling emotional pain. Again, the audience is met with deep emotion, allowing them to clearly see Raisman’s pain and the true destruction caused by Nassar’s violation.
Not only does pathos in these statements allow the audience to grasp a clearer understanding of the victims’ experiences and perspectives, it works to counter dominant male perspectives which are traditionally favored in legal spaces. In Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws, Catherine A. MacKinnon explains, “From the standpoint of a male harasser, and that taken in some cases, there is no harm if none is meant. In the same view, damages would implicitly be assessed by what a male victim of heterosexual harassment might suffer...” (MacKinnon 111). Male perspectives in instances of sexual violence with a male perpetrator are often favored over victim’s experiences. All four victim impact statements help to defy the notion that male perpetrators’ experiences are more valuable through the use of pathos to make the audience see their perspective. Once an understanding of the victim’s view is held by the audience, they are able to move past the dominant perspective enforced by current legal structures.
Throughout Miller’s statement, there are a multitude of uses of intense imagery and vivid details. For example, she says, “Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and own my sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong.” This is likely a discomforting description for a listener to digest, but that is why this is such a rhetorically strong statement. This type of visceral rhetoric makes the audience feel deep, inward emotions rather than feeling through intellect. It is suggested that 80% of one’s life is driven by emotion, while the other 20% is driven by intellect (Wrigley 82). Larson explains, “If audiences feel discomfort while listening, reading, or watching, then such tactics are rhetorically successful” (Larson 124). These tactics as used in Miller’s statement are valuable as they show the audience through feeling the real harm and damage occurring through rape and following the violence. Similarly to pathos, Miller’s use of in-depth descriptions of her traumatizing experience allows the audience to understand her story more clearly and feel her feelings; however, visceral rhetoric can arguably be more effective with the addition of discomfort rather than simply an understanding of emotion provoked in the audience. The use of visceral rhetoric allows the audience to understand a perspective that is frequently suppressed by a dominant male perspectives in legal spaces.
It is rare for 156 victims to be able to come forward and share their stories like in the case of Larry Nassar. Katie L. Gibson describes this event saying, “The double-edged complexity of this moment of rhetorical rupture recognizes the significance of the survivors’ collective rhetoric in challenging the norms of courtroom communication and confronting discursive practices of containment that strip so many survivors of voice” (Gibson 520). The power of the collective is acknowledged in both Lorincz and Raisman’s statements, showing the strength victims can have as a whole. “We were ultimately strong enough to take you down. Not one by one, but by an army of survivors. We are Jane Does no more,” recited Lorincz in her statement. Similarly, Raisman stated, “All these brave women have power, and we will use our voices to make sure you get what you deserve.” Both statements acknowledge the rhetorical strength a group can present in court through their victim impact statements. The collective can disrupt norms of courtroom communication and defy expectations of cultural and legal logics which contain and diminish survivors’ testimonies (Gibson 522).
Shari Stenberg explains, “Their collective testimonies insist that the problem of assault does not end with a prison sentence for an individual perpetrator; instead, it requires a cultural examination of institutions and systems that betray survivors” (Stenberg 46). Through recognizing the collective in their statements, Lorincz and Raisman deny dominant discourses that lie within the legal system which routinely silence victims. The collective action makes it clear that the problem does not reside within one perpetrator, but within a system that faces victims with doubt, denies their experiences, and silences them.
Not only does collective action fight a problematic legal system, it can also give survivors the courage to come forward. Raisman acknowledges the collective again and how it can act as encouragement for victims to come forward in a space that frequently isolates and silences victims. “It wasn’t until I started watching the impact statements from other brave survivors that I realized, I too, needed to be here,” she said at the beginning of her victim impact statement. Raisman recognizes how when survivors come together as one, there is a new found sense of strength and confidence in their stories. Individual voices forming into a collective to share similar stories and fight for the same cause is validating and empowering for victims, and forces the audience towards a different way of thinking and knowing (Gibson 522). Dominant discourse and standard legal proceedings traditionally doubt victims, but when over a hundred victims come together, they require the audience to acknowledge the truth of their experiences. Raisman’s recognition of the empowering nature a collective brings is rhetorically strong and draws attention to oppressive discourses which victims as one can work to dismantle.
All four victim impact statements also acknowledge the conviction status of their perpetrator or the consequences their perpetrator faces as well. There is a dominant public narrative that men can commit acts of sexual violence and not face repercussions. Morrison Torrey explains that unfortunately this narrative is not necessarily untrue as “conviction rates for rape are estimated to be as low as one to four percent” (Torrey 1024). Miller states, “He is a lifetime sex registrant. That doesn’t expire,” acknowledging that Turner is facing the consequences of his actions. “You are a rapist. This is how the world will remember you,” Wheatley states. Despite her rapist committing suicide, the lasting memory the world will have of him is that he is a rapist. “There is peace in knowing that you will never be able to walk the streets again and hurt any other little girls,” Lorincz said, addressing Nassar’s position post trial in her victim impact statement. She expresses the comfort she is brought through the knowledge that Nassar is being held responsible for his crimes; through the knowledge that he will be in prison, she and Nassar’s other victims will receive justice. Similarly, Raisman states, “You already know you are going away to a place where you won’t be able to hurt anybody ever again.” Here, Raisman expresses how Nassar will be going to prison, away from the opportunity ever sexually abuse young girls again. Each of these excerpts counter the narrative that male perpetrators of sexual violence can get away with their crimes unscathed. Each statement disagrees with the largely accepted public narrative that men are able to get away with rape without facing any repercussions. The four victims show that with the help of their stories and testimonies, their perpetrators can and will face conviction for their crimes, further demonstrating the rhetorical potential of victim impact statements.
There is a dominant narrative in legal setting and society in general that “victims of sexual assault as traumatized and unstable” (Gibson 532). Wheatley and Lorincz each counter this narrative by speaking of their career aspirations and success in their statements. “I use my talent to recreate worlds where my fear of you does not exist. Over the past 22 years I have created a world of light, color, texture through watercolor paintings, photography, and fabric art. I made the decision in spite of you, in spite of what you did to me, and because of you, because of what you did to me, to focus on the things in my life that brought light to the dark and frightening memories,” Wheatley says, explaining her success as an artist despite what her attacker did to her. Despite trauma following Wheatley after facing sexual violence, this is not what defines her. Lorincz takes a relatable approach to Wheatley when in her statement she says, “Now as I look to the future, I plan to pursue a career in criminal justice. I’m hoping that by working to put molesters like you away I might be able to stop the nightmares and start healing.” Even though Nassar left trauma for Lorincz, she has plans for her future and hope for success in healing. Despite having to carry the burden of being sexually abused as a child, Lorincz can grow and emerge with a newfound strength and courage. The acknowledgement of success in the future or expression of hope for the future are rhetorically strong methods that force the audience to recognize strength and growth, despite dominant discourses in legal frameworks that do not acknowledge this part of victims and say victims are unable to recover from sexual violence and lead productive, fulfilling, successful lives.
Miller, Lorincz, and Raisman all call attention to the systems and individuals which enabled abuse and aided their attackers in avoiding the consequences of their crimes. “The probation officer factored in that the defendant is youthful and has no prior convictions. In my opinion, he is old enough to know what he did was wrong. When you are eighteen in this country you can go to war. When you are nineteen, you are old enough to pay the consequences for attempting to rape someone,” says Miller. In her statement she also explains how her statements following the crime were “slimmed down to distortion and taken out of context” in the probation officer’s report, and the probation officer recommended a year or less in county jail which Miller said is “a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, and of the consequences of the pain I have been forced to endure.” The probation officer’s treatment of the rape exemplifies the way male perpetrators are favored over victims and how the perspective of male perpetrators is often prioritized over the victim’s perspective.
Lorincz draws attention to figures who ignored and allowed the abuse to continuously occur when she says to Nassar in her statement, “I only hope that when you get a chance to speak you tell us who knew, what they knew, and when they knew it.” She then proceeds to ask if faculty members at Michigan State University knew, and if John Geddert, a gymnastics coach knew saying, “Did John Geddert know you were stealing the innocence of little girls in the back room of his gym?” Lorincz’s questioning is rhetorically strong as it calls attention to those who allowed Nassar’s abuse to occur and shifts focus away from dominant narratives that traditionally place blame on victims rather than perpetrators and those who enable them.
Raisman works to call out the figures and systems which enabled and ignored Nassar’s abuse in her victim impact statement as well. She explains how the United States Olympic Committee dismissed accusations against Nassar in 2012, over a year after they said they knew about Nassar’s actions, and in 2016 at the Olympic Games, the president of the United States Olympic Committee said they would not pursue an investigation. “It’s clear now that if we leave it up to these organizations, history is likely to repeat itself,” Raisman said in reference to the United States Olympic Committee and U.S.A. Gymnastics.
Systems routinely betray victims, denying their lived experiences, in favor of a masculine perspective which dominates legal discourse. Shari Stenberg explains, “The problem of assault does not end with a prison sentence for an individual perpetrator; instead, it requires a cultural examination of institutions and systems that betray survivors” (Stenberg 46). Through their statements, Miller, Lorincz, and Raisman call out individuals who let perpetrators off easy without allowing victims to receive full justice and call attention to systemic issues which have continually ignored victims and enabled perpetrators. Without reform to these structures which heavily influence how legal hearings play out in cases of sexual violence, “history is likely to repeat itself,” and victims will continue to go unheard and suffer at the hands of aggressors.
Each of these victim impact statements demonstrates the rhetorical strength victims can have in countering dominant oppressive structures in legal spaces. Contemporary US legal discourse in cases of sexual violence has traditionally favored a heterosexual male perspective which silences and isolates victims, skews the public’s perception of what constitutes sexual violence, impacts verdicts in legal proceedings, and shifts focus away from uprooting larger systems of gender inequality. Favoring of a dominant male perspective actively creates gender biases that lead to unfair trials and violates victims’ human rights. Victim impact statements allow victims of sexual violence to reclaim their rights and fight back against oppressive structures. Even seemingly small discursive moments, such as victim impact statements, have the power to intervene in an unstable and flawed system to enact greater change and systemic reform to rid the structures of gender biases (MacKinnon 1).