Implicit bias is shown on a business photo using the text
The Recent Amber Heard/Johnny Depp Court Proceedings:
Social media ran overwhelmingly against her. According to social media experts, fake accounts on Twitter targeted her, called her a liar, and amplified positive messaging about him sufficient to move the public opinion needle. Many tuned out to the hearings, essentially saying, “a pox on both their houses.” Others thought he hit her, and she hit him. There was mutual abuse. So what? Some commentators saw a deeper underlying problem. In an OpEd piece in the NYTimes, Michele Goldberg wrote, “There seems, however, to be a broader misogynist frenzy at work, one characteristic of the deeply reactionary moment we’re living through.”
Misogyny Exists
A United Nations gender study found that 90% of people are biased against women. When this “implicit bias” plays out in a court of law, the result is an injustice to women. When the result involves allegations of domestic violence, more women are discouraged from coming forward and telling their stories for fear of not being believed. More men are emboldened to continue their abusive behavior.
The Fallacy of “Mutual Abuse”
Most domestic violence experts don’t believe in the concept of “mutual abuse,” believing that when two parties engage in abuse against each other, one party is the primary aggressor, Ruth Glenn, president and CEO of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, told NBC News as reported by Vox.
Why Doesn’t the Me Too Movement Help More Victims of Domestic Violence?
In high profile “Me Too” cases such as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes, and Prince Andrew the results were in large part based upon the number of accusers who came forward, a number so significant as to impugn the credibility of each man accused. Criminal convictions, public disgrace and loss of positions of power were the inevitable results. When it is one female accuser and one male aggressor alone inside a home, the problem is graver and deeper. He is oftentimes more likely to be believed than she is, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Why is it harder for women to be believed when they claim emotional abuse?
A plaintiff or petitioner in a domestic violence case, as in any other civil case, subjects herself to scrutiny and questioning by the abuser’s attorneys. In each case, the court faces a balancing act between the rights of two parties: the alleged victim and alleged abuser, and the application of the laws of her state.
For a victim of domestic violence to be able to give credible testimony without evidence of physical abuse, she must have a prepared “perfect” trial record:
- Police incident reports;
- Medical and/or psychiatric records showing she had to receive treatment in real-time for the abuse;
- Detailed photographic evidence of her injuries;
- Video and or audio recordings in real-time of the incidences as they occurred;
- Detailed testimony that she can give in a straightforward narrative in a court of law at trial.
Most victims are emotionally distraught by the time they actually get to speak with an attorney or in a court of law. Few have any records. Few have gone to the police or filed reports because they were too scared or because they were too afraid their abuser would find out. Few have videos and/or audio recordings of the abuse.
If they have spoken to a domestic violence counselor, they are accused of creating a narrative to fit the definition of domestic violence provided to them by the counselor. Because of this, almost half of the domestic violence cases go unreported. Putting oneself through a hearing in which your personal life is scrutinized and your credibility is attacked is personally painful and frightening.
What can the courts do about it?
Judges need to be trained in implicit bias against women. They need training in how victims often present and how the facts may not line up perfectly, especially in a domestic violence case. There needs to be more sensitivity afforded to women. Social science must play a role in judge’s training.
The judges must be taught to consider why a woman might stay in an abusive relationship, why she might not go to the police, and why she might not have any records or proof of injuries. Why may there be no physical injuries? Why her fear may be exacerbated over time. Why she might even return to him. The court must consider these possibilities with understanding and compassion.
If it is a jury case, cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom. While Johnny Depp’s attorneys can argue that social media played no role in the verdict, the fact that the jurors went home every night to their families, who undoubtedly knew they were a juror on his trial and were either watching it being streamed or reading about it online undoubtedly did influence some of the jurors.
Neither women nor men are by nature liars.
There is no natural proclivity by either gender to lie. The implicit biases against women in particular often apparent in social media and across society in general suggest the opposite as to women.
