Do We Really Need To Publish All The Details Of Rape Cases? Two Maltese Lawyers weigh in
A heinous case of rape was at the forefront of the Maltese media, where the public was regularly fed graphic details of a man who raped his girlfriend’s mother while under the guise of “satanic” voices.
Now that the case has ended with the man sentenced to 20 years in prison, and the court has prohibited the publication of the names of the victims, there is no better time to break the dynamics of such an emotionally charged case.
Does the public really want to know every detail of a family’s sexual trauma? Lovin Malta asked the duo of lawyers behind PB&C, Martina Caruana and Emma Portelli Bonnici, to weigh in on the matter.
“First of all the release of graphic details of any court case involving rape can be re-traumatizing for the victim – especially this one. This can lead to the victim feeling that she is being victimized again by the court process and by the press,” explained Caruana.
The graphic nature of the details, continued Caruana, can also lead to public scrutiny of the victim and his actions, which can be harmful and unfair.
“Secondly, the release of graphic details of the case could influence public opinion and the outcome of the case. For example, if the public is given a distorted or incomplete view of the case, this can lead to a mob mentality and a rush to judgment. This can lead to an unfair result for the victim.”
The question of what details should and should not be in the public sphere and who bears responsibility for the ethical broadcasting of such sensitive information is certainly not always cut and dry.
“Many times I meet people who do not believe that the public has any right to know what happens between two or more individuals – but the reality is that they do. The public’s right to know and its right to testify and access court proceedings is imperative for the proper functioning of the administration of justice within a democracy, allowing the public to scrutinize decisions and judicial outcomes,” added Emma Portelli Bonnici.
“Of course, this function must necessarily be weighed against the privacy of the individual – and that is why sometimes we have members of the judiciary who issue a ban on the publication of the names of the victims and/or the accused.”
“I think a more important point that needs to be raised in this regard is the responsibility of journalists to cover such proceedings – especially sensitive cases that have to do with violence, especially gender-based crimes such as rape or femicide – and the relative responsibility of all of us who consume that information through whatever medium we get our news from.”
“Deliberately misleading titles, articles full of errors, using the most salacious details available to prepare stories that can get you more clicks (clickbait) are all very problematic and go against what modern ethical standards should be journalism,” continued the lawyer.
“But antithetically, why do these things work? Why does clickbait actually drive internet traffic?” Portelli Bonnici asked.
“Because hoards of people consume this information like village gossip – and therein lies the problem. Our society needs to learn the fundamentals of empathy, we need to learn to resist the urge to make quick judgments and text their friends or call their neighbors with all the juicy details that belong to another person while forgetting conveniently these people or their families also have feelings. maybe then we can collectively move away from consuming the most traumatic events of people’s lives as if we were in the cinema.”
In light of this, PB&C, their human-centered law firm, specializes in trauma-informed legal services.
“This means that the firm’s approach to advocacy takes into account the potential trauma clients may have experienced, and works to minimize re-traumatisation during the legal process. The firm’s focus is on creating a safe and empathetic environment for clients and providing legal representation that is tailored to each individual’s unique needs and circumstances. This approach is designed to empower clients and help them achieve the best possible results in their legal matters,” concluded Caruana.
All in all, access to information is a right and a pillar of democracy, but it still required a nuanced balance and a strong ethical approach to avoid unnecessary suffering.
Do you agree with their arguments? Sound off in the comments below