The new BBC reality programme, The Verdict seems to have created a heated debate amongst critics and feminists alike in the last few days. The show is that of a fictional rape trial, with celebrities as the 'jury'. With the controversy that followed the racism on Celebrity Big Brother, the decision to air this programme must not have been taken lightly by BBC bosses. Yet yesterday, many people protested outside the BBC amid concerns that The Verdict 'sidelines the victim, trivialises and sensationalises rape'. This can hardly be positive feedback for the BBC.
The Verdict centres on a controversial rape trial, yet viewers are keen to discover the opinions of their favourite celebrity 'juror'. The panel includes the likes of Michael Portillo, Stan Collymore, Patsy Palmer, Jeffrey Archer( a lively bunch, then!) and discussions in between the court room scenes are eye opening if only to discover that there still exists many preconceptions of rape victims- the stereotypical response of ' they asked for it', ' she was provokative' being the main phrases exercised over lunch.
Johan Hari's column in the Independent regarding this programme highlights the general attitude of the jury, commenting that, 'and as we watch the "jury" discuss the case, spewing out antediluvian myths about rape victims with barely a splutter from the rest, it becomes clear why so many rapists walk free'.
Fewer than 1 in 100 rapists now end up behind bars, and The Verdict could potentially dissuade rape victims from going forward due to the way in which the young woman on the show is treated when giving evidence.
This is a highly sensitive issue, and one that must be treated with caution. Nevertheless, I agree with Johan Hari in that the programme plays a role in portraying how potential rape victims are currently treated during trials, and how this culture needs to be changed.
2 comments:
How seriously do you think the legal personnel are taking this show and why do you think they have chosen to get involved?
That’s a very good question. The Barristers probably thought it was an interesting concept – the motives of the 'jury' involvement would be down to the individuals.
My concern is that programme makers, in the interests of publicity, have gone for a sensational topic.If the aim was to hold a judicial experiment – then a number of differing trials would have been sufficient.
My concern is that rape victims could be less likely to make a complaint to the police as a result of what I have seen of the programme so far.
Post a Comment