Abstract
United States law and culture have yet to find a constructive and fair way to talk about rape, especially in “non-paradigmatic” rape cases like acquaintance or date rape. Particularly on college campuses, acquaintance rape is an ongoing, severe problem. Leading legal minds disagree sharply on how to address it. In part, this polarizing debate stems from our collective inability to free our language of the myths and stock stories that plague the subject of rape. No court case better exemplifies the problem than the notorious decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, one of the most widely taught rape cases in the United States. In his empirical study of attitudes on rape, Professor Dan Kahan used the Berkowitz facts in part because they are such an iconic representation of some of the more difficult and troubling issues surrounding acquaintance rape. In that study, Kahan concluded that whether people perceive a story as describing “rape” depends primarily on cultural cognition, meaning the cultural group to which the reader of the story belongs. The text and substance of the law’s definition of rape mattered little. Kahan concluded that if we wish to change outcomes in rape cases, the cultural understandings of rape, more than the law, must change. This essay takes Kahan’s conclusion that cultural understanding is the primary driver of rape outcomes and asks the question: from where does that cultural understanding come? In no small part, this essay argues, those cultural beliefs come from the law, particularly from legal narratives. The facts of judicial opinions reflect the judges’ cultural understanding of rape and then that cultural understanding becomes what rape is (and isn’t). That image of rape then powerfully influences cultural understanding within and outside of law. It is a recursive process by which legal narratives create and reinforce cultural understanding which then itself creates and reinforces legal narratives and so on in an endless loop. In this way, law is neither irrelevant nor innocent in the outcome of rape cases. It is just exerting its influence, often imperceptibly, through rhetoric.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I’ve included here all references to the characters, including pronouns and possessive pronouns (for example “her boyfriend” counted as one reference to complainant and one reference to the boyfriend).
There are two passive verb constructions “received no answer” and “finding it unlocked.” Complainant is the subject of these verbs as well, but they are passive constructions, so I did not count them.
References
Amsterdam, A.G., and J.S. Bruner. 2000. Minding the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, M.J. 1998. Reviving resistance in rape law. University of Illinois Law Review 4: 953–1011.
Backer, L.C. 1996. Constructing a homosexual for constitutional theory: Sodomy narrative, jurisprudence, and antipathy in United States and British Courts. Tulane Law Review 71: 529–596.
Berger, L.L., and K. Stanchi. 2018. Legal Persuasion: A Rhetorical Approach to the Science. Milton Park: Routledge Press.
Broekman, J., and L.C. Backer. 2014. Signs In Law—A Source Book: The Semiotics of Law in Legal Education III. Berlin: Springer.
Chappell, J., and M. Young. 2017. Bad Girls and Transgressive Women in Popular Television, Literature and Film. Berlin: Springer.
Clover, C.J. 2020. Her Body, Himself: Gender in the Slasher Film. In Misogyny, Misandry, and Misanthropy, ed. F. Ferguson and H. Bloch. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 641 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1994).
Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 510 A.2d 1217 (1986).
Conklin, M. 2020. Victim or complaining witness: The difference between guilty and not guilty. San Diego Law Review 2: 423–432.
Corrigan, R. 2015. Up Against the Wall: Rape Reform and the Failure of Success. New York: New York University Press.
Cover, R.M. 1983. Nomos and narrative. Harvard Law Review 97: 4–68.
Deese, C.S. 1995. Is there hope for Pennsylvania after Berkowitz? The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law 4: 167–197.
Delgado, R., and J. Stefancic. 1990. Norms and narratives: Can judges avoid serious moral error. Texas Law Review 69: 1929–1960.
Eyster, J.P. 2008. Lawyer as artist: Using significant moments and obtuse objects to enhance advocacy. The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute. 14: 87–126.
Faulkner, W. 1931. Sanctuary. London: Jonathan Cape and Harrison Smith.
Foley, B.J., and R.A. Robbins. 2000. Fiction 101: A primer for lawyers on how to use fiction writing techniques to write persuasive facts sections. Rutgers Law Journal 32: 459–483.
Gerrig, R.J. 1993. Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Goodman, Christine Chambers. 2009. Protecting the party girl: A new approach for evaluating intoxicated consent. BYU Law Review 1: 57–97.
Griffin, Lisa Kern. 2013. Narrative, truth, and trial. Georgetown Law Journal 101: 281–335.
Gruber, A. 2009. Rape, feminism, and the war on crime. Washington Law Review 84: 581–660.
Hardy, T. 1891. Tess of the D’Urbervilles: A Pure Woman Faithfully Presented. London: James R. Osgood, McIlvaine & co.
Johansen, S.J. 2010. Was Colonel Sanders a terrorist?: An essay on the ethical limits of applied legal storytelling. Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors 7: 63–86.
Kahan, D. 2010. Culture, cognition, and consent: Who perceives what, and why, in acquaintance-rape cases. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158: 729–813.
Lopez, G.P. 1984. Lay lawyering. UCLA Law Review 32: 1–60.
Madriz, E. 1997. Nothing Bad Happens to Good Girls: Fear of Crime in Women’s Lives. University of California Press.
Malcom, J. 1999. The Crime of Sheila McGough. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Meanly, E. 2010. The sexiest drinks a girl can ask for—And how to order them. Glamour Magazine.
Mezey, N. 2001. Law as culture. Yale J.L. & Human 13: 35–67.
Orenstein, A. 1998. No bad men: A feminist analysis of character evidence in rape trials. Hastings Law Review 49: 663–716.
Page, C. 2020. An unusual suspect? Unreliable narrators in fiction and law. Berkeley Journal of Entertainment & Sports Law 9: 1–40.
Perrault, C. 1697. Le Petit Chaperon Rouge (Little Red Riding Hood). Paris: Unknown Publisher.
Richardson, S. 1748. Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady. London: Editor of Pamela.
Rideout, C.J. 2008. Storytelling, narrative rationality, and legal persuasion. The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute 14: 53–86.
Robbins, R.A. 2021. Fiction 102: Create a portal for story immersion. Legal Communication & Rhetoric 28: 27–58.
Sarat, A., and T.R. Kearns. 2009. Law in the Domains of Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Scheppele, K.L. 1992. Just the facts, ma’am: Sexualized violence, evidentiary habits and the revision of truth. New York Law School Law Review 37: 123–172.
Sherwin, R.K. 1994. Law frames: Historical truth and narrative necessity in a criminal case. Stanford Law Review 47: 39–83.
Spampinato, E. 2021. Rereading rape in the critical canon: Adjudicative criticism and the capacious conception of rape. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 2 (2): 22–160.
Stanchi, K.M. 2010. The power of priming in legal advocacy: Using the science of first impressions to persuade the reader. Oregon Law Review 89: 309–350.
State in the Interest of M.T.S., 609 A.2d 1266 (N.J. 1992).
State v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720 (Md. 1981).
Sunstein, C. 2009. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York: Penguin Books.
Taylor, R. 2012. Demon(ized) women: Female punishment in the ‘pink film’ and J-Horror. Asian Cinema 23: 199–216.
Weresh, M. 2018. Wait, What?: Harnessing the power of distraction and redirection in persuasion. JALWD 15: 81–117.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Stanchi, K. The Rhetoric of Rape Through the Lens of Commonwealth V. Berkowitz. Int J Semiot Law 37, 359–378 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10033-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10033-y