Celebrities and Rape

Posted by Winnie Melda on January 8th, 2019

The discussion segment is now 4088 words which are approximately 14.8 pages. I don’t think it is the physical pages that your instructor is looking at but the word count and yours is now past the 12 pages which is 3300 words

• III.       Discussion

The section gives an in-depth analysis of the factors bearing on the problem of rape by celebrities.  There is a tendency to give celebrities a lighter sentence due to the assumption they are less likely to repeat the offense again.  The numerous cases of rape committed by celebrities and lenient sentences give the impression to the public that celebrities are considered more special than the ordinary citizen.  The lenient sentencing is also an indicator that the criminal justice systems give celebrities an unfair advantage.  It is about time the criminal justice system realizes that a criminal offense must be tried fairly and a fair conviction given irrespective of the status of the offender.  For instance, rape is an offense that causes physical, emotions and psychological damages to the victim.  Some victims never recover from the rape ordeal.

The disparity in the handling of any case including rape is different when the accused is a celebrity.  The comparison between the handling of an ordinary American citizen is extensive compared to the handling of an affluent and rich celebrity.  According to Clarke (2010), the poor and ordinary American citizen can be surprised with a midnight raid by the SWAT team.  The after math of such as raid is often broken doors and a house that has been turned upside down.   The SWAT team raids the home a suspect of rape with so much zeal and determination to bring justice to the accused. In contrast, the celebrity is accorded some degree of respect that is unseen when handling the ordinary citizen.  The celebrities are required to turn themselves in, and it is almost impossible to hear of a raid.   Law enforcement agencies request the accused celebrity to present himself to the police station for questioning.  There is usually minimal to no drama as the celebrity presents himself to the police, records a statement and awaits the determination of the case. The law enforcement agencies who make arrests can also be carried away when they discover that they are supposed to arrest a celebrity.  Some law enforcement agencies pause for pictures and ask for autographs thus forgetting the purpose of the arrest.  The fact that a law enforcement officer can pause an arrest process to take pictures with the celebrity diminishes the seriousness of the crime that the celebrity has been accused of.

When discussing cases related to rape by celebrities, it is critical to analyze the factors that trigger the special treatment that they receive.  Sometimes, celebrities are set free while others are given sentences that are seen as a mere “slap” on the wrist. One issue that stands out about the lenient handling of rape cases allegedly done by victims is the celebrity’s ability to pay off their victims.  Vagianos (2014) of the Huffington post, celebrities are impossible to touch, but they can touch others.  There is a public perception that celebrities can do what they want with little to no retribution, but the public can do very little.  The perception of celebrities has created the impression that celebrities are untouchable (Vagianos, 2014).   Celebrities are handled as special people thus most people find it unimaginable that the celebrity committed an offense such as rape.  The celebrity may have been engaged in philanthropic activities that tend to blind the public over the seriousness of the alleged offense.  When such a celebrity faces a jury and a court, the “good” of the celebrity outshines his “bad” behavior, and the celebrity is let off with a light sentence.  Sentences such as house arrest and probation can be accorded to the celebrity irrespective of the offense.  Similarly, the celebrity can get a light sentencing.

Vagianos (2014) specifically looks at how famous men have been able to shrug off rape allegations because of their celebrity status.  Even when multiple celebrities come forward to accuse the celebrity, the allegations are overshadowed by the celebrity status of the individual.  In the recent rape allegations against comedy star Bill Cosby, Sherwell (2014), indicates Bill Cosby paid off women amid the rising allegations of sexual assault.  Eight women came forward with allegations of sexual assault by Bill Cosby (Sherwell, 2014).  The allegation that he paid off some of his victims is an indicator that celebrities have the financial means to “hush” an allegation.  Michael Jackson also faced allegations of rape and sexual molestations.  However, there were allegations that he paid out 0 millions of his money to many victims that did not come forward to report abuse (Sherwell, 2014). It is obvious that celebrities have the financial means to make any bad situation disappear.  A case may, therefore, be fool proof but it eventually disappears as witnesses and victims withdraw from the cases.  Allegations of pay-off often linger, but celebrities have lawyers who ensure that evidence of payments does not exist. The celebrities are, therefore able to get on with their lives thus leaving the victim carrying the psychological and emotional burden associated with the sexual assault.

According to Maier (2004), the public’s perception of the apparent special treatment that celebrities get is wrong.  Legal experts argue that what the public perceives as special treatment is applied even when handling the ordinary citizen.  The main difference is that the celebrity’s case proceeding gets a lot of publicity due to his status while the story of the average American remains unknown.  When a rape case involving a celebrity is covered by the media, the individual and the entire proceeding receive intense scrutiny (Maier, 2004).  Therefore, to some extent, the celebrity loses his privacy as his life is put under the microscope of the media and the public.   The celebrity faces a public jury (through the media) that has to determine whether the celebrity is guilty or not.  Celebrities that are favorite are often defended by the public.  The media exposes the celebrity to the scrutiny that in most instances favor them.  For instance, if the majority of the public believes that the celebrity is innocent, the court is likely to be swayed to favor the celebrity over the victim. However, there are allegations that the convictions that celebrities receive differ from the conviction that the average American receives.  Maier (2004) argues that the difference can be apparent because the juries tend to favor high-profile defendants.  There is also the perception that the jurors are seeking popularity through local shows.  The local shows may contact the jurors involved in the case for analyzing the case once a judgment is passed.

Law enforcement agencies have also been slow to act when handling cases involving celebrities accused of rape.  A common hindrance in the handling of rape allegations is the star treatment that the celebrities receive.  For instance, celebrities have lawyers that help them through their cases.  A celebrity can be guilty of the offense, but he can plea to a lesser charge and subsequently get a lighter sentencing.  A celebrity accused of rape can receive a light sentencing that includes covering the medical expense for the victim as well as taking anger management classes.  Such flimsy judgment takes away the hope of a fair trial for rape victims as the judgment has no impact on the accused.  According to the reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press (2005), the courts are clamping down on the public’s access to cases involving the rich and famous.  Historically, the American judicial system has always been open to the public thus allowing for the public, and the press to follow case proceedings.  The American judicial system has held onto this approach as a means of advocating for openness in the handling of court cases.  However, there is an emerging tendency by the courts to withhold and or control the amount of information being released to the public (Committee for Freedom of the press, 2005).  Courts are now reluctant to allow the media and the public to follow some court cases.

 Similarly, the courts have been known to institute gag orders thus limiting the discussion of certain ongoing court cases.  Some judges have argued that the efforts to keep the public away are aimed at minimizing the public’s influence on the case.  However, it is easy to note that most of these cases involve the rich and famous.  The sexual abuse case against Michael Jackson is an example of a case where the accused received star treatment.  Judge Rodney Melville gave a gag order barring all participants of the case from discussing any matters related to the case in any other platform.  In short, a lot of secrecy shrouded Michael Jackson sexual abuse case, and the public has very little information about the case other than what the courts were providing.  The court ignores the fact that the public is the ultimate beneficiaries of the judicial system.  

Criminal proceedings are instituted for the benefit of the public. The proceedings need to ensure the public remains well informed on court cases of public interest.  An open case eliminates the threat of favoritism and special treatment due to the status of the accused.   The public needs to fight against the secrecy placed on court cases involving celebrities.  The public can use the media to highlight the need to make such case public.  The first amendment grants the public the right to access court proceeding and documents.  The provision of a private court hearing and private trials should not a special treatment accorded to the rich and famous.   It blocks the public from following the case proceedings thus increasing the risk of manipulation of the case to favor the celebrity. An open case minimizes the risk of manipulation thus pushing the court to give a fair trial.  For instance, jurors that would like to favor the celebrity may find that they have to adhere to the rule of the court and give a favor judgment despite the fact that it may affect their celebrity.  An open court also minimizes the risk of manipulating the judge as the judge is in the spotlight on how he will preside over the case. According to Crater (2005), the rich and famous have a way of manipulating the criminal system of the United States.  The rich and famous have a way of manipulating the system to their favor.  For instance, a celebrity may have a jury that favors him.  Crater (2005) further argues that celebrities have the financial means to manipulate court decisions as well as influence their accusers to drop their charges.  The outcome is dissatisfied public as the ultimate ruling favors the celebrity.  It is possible to find cases involving celebrities being drop mid-hearing when the accuser drops the charges suddenly.   In case the accuser drops the charges, the courts have no alternative but to terminate the court proceeding and the celebrity walks away scot free (Crater, 2005).

 Celebrity Euphoria can also affect the criminal justice system and the ability of law enforcement agencies to bring justice to the victims of rape.  Celebrities have an extensive fan base that loves and adores them.  In the emergence of an allegation of rape, the fan rise to defend their celebrity. Fans can take extensive measures such as demonstrations as well as the social media to demonstrate their support for the specific celebrity.   Celebrity euphoria can cloud the judgment of the fans, the jury and the judge to the extent that they influence the case to favor the celebrity irrespective of obvious evidence. Unfortunately, celebrity euphoria can interfere with investigations, court proceeding and delivery of a fair hearing.  Sometimes celebrities are followed by their fans to their court proceedings where they follow and wait for the judgment of the case (Crater, 2005).  Celebrity euphoria can cloud judgment and the determination of a fair trial.  The jury and the judge may be influenced to favor the celebrity so as to please the fans that may be waiting to hear the ruling.  It is easy for the court to be cowed and bow to the pressure of the majority who favor the celebrity over the victim. In 1994, the late Tupac Shakur was accused of sexually assaulting a woman he had invited into his hotel room. The rapper was handed a one and half to 4 years’ prison sentence.  Ironically, the rapper stayed in prison for less than a year.  The rapper gained more popularity during and after his prison sentence.  The sentencing of Shakur thus failed to serve its intended purpose.  Incarceration facilities strive to remove the accused from their normal public life so that they can rehabilitate and become better citizens.  The incarceration of Shakur served the opposite purpose as he became more popular and recorded an increased fanbase during his incarceration.  Suddenly, incarceration became a stylish thing.  The hip-hop world began to perceive incarceration as an experience that “gangsters” must experience. Similarly, a victim may opt not to report a case of sexual assault if the suspect is a celebrity loved and followed by much of the public. 

According to Resnick (2016), victims of rape and sexual assault are largely failed by the criminal justice system.  In the presence of celebrity euphoria, a victim may be intimidated to report a sexual assault against a celebrity.  The criminal justice system lacks the ideal platform where the victim can present his or her case and allow investigators to conduct their investigations.  The victims are burdened with the euphoria surrounding the celebrity as well as providing evidence that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the allegation is true. In a rape case, the victim may find that it is a case of “his word against mine” especially when the evidence is inadequate (Resnick, 2016).  A victim of rape may find that a large percentage of the population favors the celebrity he is trying to accuse.  Fans may even begin a smear campaign against the victim to show how she lacks credibility.  In short, the victim has to prepare to fight and defend herself against the celebrity as well as the hordes of fans who will be against her.  The celebrity may hire the best of lawyers to oversee the hearing while the victim may not have the financial means to hire a lawyer for the case.  In some instance, the victim may only be armed with her words leaving her case weak and the chances of an acquittal very high.  The celebrity may argue the sex was consensual although the victim may attempt to prove otherwise. Celebrities have been known to attract a huge following due to their celebrity status.  In concerts, fans have been known to offer themselves to celebrities. In the end, some of the celebrities end up having sex with the celebrities, only to complain of rape the next day.  The celebrity standards a chance of winning the case especially if the courts realize that the victim followed the celebrity to hotel room willingly.

Investigators have also been known to be lazy in gathering evidence relating to a rape case against a celebrity.  For instance, an allegation of rape may need to be accompanied by pictures of the injuries that the victim sustained.  This is especially the case when the hearing of the case is prolonged to the extent that the victim does not carry any visible injuries by the time of the court proceeding. The defendant has a lawyer(s) who ensure that the case flows to their pace. The lawyers may request for postponement of the hearing until when the defendant is available.  Prolonged postponement leads to loss of clarity regarding the events leading to the rape.   Law enforcement agencies may also fail to interrogate the accused thus weakening the case further (Resnick, 2016).  Eventually, the victim loses the case based on the provision of insufficient evidence as well as the presence of a good defense.   Victims who find themselves in such a situation give up on the case.  However, some victims have been known to go further a file a civil lawsuit against the celebrity.  As a civil lawsuit, the victim files for compensation for damages related to assault, physical harm, and psychological stress. Victims that are lucky with the civil case win some amount of money as compensation.  However, the amount of money cannot compare to the blatant failure of the criminal justice system that allows a rapist to walk scot free due to his celebrity status.

According to Bergen (1998) athletes are also celebrities who can acquire the best legal counsel.  The ability to acquire the best legal counsel serves as the most outstanding feature and a safety net for most celebrities.  The strong defense team adopts all legal means to ensure their client acquires a hearing and conviction that suits him or her.   For instance, the defense team can push back court dates so that their client attend to a matter relating to their career.  For instance, a case can be pushed so that the athlete participates in a championship without the burden of an ongoing case burdening him.  The strategy to push back cases works for the defense team especially in the case where the victims and their witnesses give up on the case or lose contact with each other (Bergen, 1998).  Moreover, time makes the specific details involving an event hazy hence a witness may have trouble recalling fine details such as the time or the dress code of the defendant at the time of the offense.  Additionally, the defense team can argue for consent sex over rape.  An ideal example is the rape charges that had been brought against R. Kelly in 2008.  The courts were presented with video evidence that demonstrated R. Kelly was engaging in sexual acts with an underage girl.  Kelly’s defense team could argue and convince the courts that the identity of the girl in the video clip was inconclusive.  In the end, the jury found Kelly not guilty. The identity of the girl may have been inconclusive, but it was obvious that Kelly was engaging in sexual acts with a minor.  The judgment is an indicator that the courts are quick to see the “innocence” of celebrity acts.

 In the world of fame, money, and celebrities the issue of consent sex and not rape arises especially when evidence emerges to show that the plaintiff was looking forward to a sexual encounter with the defendant.  The defendant may thus agree that sex between him and the plaintiff occurred, but he may argue that the sex was consensual.  Unfortunately, for the plaintiff, evidence such as the text that indicates she is looking forward to sleeping with the defendant can work against her and for the defendant (Bergen, 1998).  In short, the defendants’ legal team knows how to find and use loopholes that may emerge in the case.  For instance, the defendant’s legal team may provide camera footage to demonstrate that the plaintiff was with the defendant willingly before finally returning to the defendant hotel room where the sexual engagement occurs.  In such a scenario, the plaintiff may have a difficult time convincing the court that sexual engagement was a result of rape.

The criminal justice system also fails because of the increase perception of celebrities as moral beings.  The public can influence the judgment and ruling of a court case against a celebrity especially if the celebrity is perceived as the representation of morals.  A celebrity may be involved in community development.  He may participate in activities aimed at alleviating his community from social and economic problems.  It may be difficult to prosecute such as celebrity if allegations of rape arise.  It is with such case that the public reports the celebrity in high regard, assuring the public that the accusations are false.  A victim may have strong evidence against a celebrity, but the court system may still favor the celebrity especially if he is a first-time offender. The defense is likely to argue that the crime was a first-time offense and thus seek leniency in conviction.  The defense is also likely to defend his client based on his moral character and strong relation with his community.  Character evidence offered by the defendant is admissible in courts and can be presented as circumstantial evidence.  The defense can use character evidence to prove that the defendant has been a person of high moral grounds and thus should not be punished severely.  Unfortunately, celebrities accused of rape have been released been released or given sentences that are very mild compared to the crime they committed. 

The use of character witness by celebrities has been giving them an advantage against their accusers.  The court hearing and judgment of Stanford Swimmer Brock Allen Turner is an example of how the criminal justice system favors the rich and famous over their victims.  Turner was found by two other students raping a semi conscious woman and was arrested an arraigned in court.  Turner faced up to 14years maximum sentence (Gupta, 2016).  However, Turner received a lenient sentencing because the criminal justice system perceived him as the poster boy for everything that Americans love.  Turner was the epitome of the ideal boy in any American family.  The court thus found it unfair to send him to prison.  Instead, they opted to give him a probationary sentencing.  Turner case is an example of how the judicial system elevates the voices and experience of the rich and famous while dismissing the voice of their victims.  In the case of rape, it is the female victims that have no voice or representation against a system that is openly favorable to the rich and famous.

            What emerges when analyzing the lenient sentencing of celebrities is that there are two forms of justice. The first is celebrity justice that favors the rich and famous while the second form of justice is justice that the ordinary American citizen faces.  It is undeniable that a celebrity facing a rape charge is handled differently from an ordinary American citizen facing a similar charge.  The provision of celebrity justice goes beyond court proceedings and into the prisons.  The criminal justice system has incarceration facilities for the wealthy, famous and influential people in the society and incarceration facilities for the ordinary citizen (Vaglanos, 2014).  The influential persons can high the best attorney’s in their cities as well as public relations associates to help manage their image in the face of a court proceeding.  The celebrities thus enjoy certain privileges irrespective of the crime they are being charged.

 According to Clarke (2010), the difference between the handling of celebrities and the ordinary citizen is evident in jails and cells.  The Southern Californian jail is an ideal example of how celebrities receive special treatment in cells.  South California has upscale cells that are meant for the affluent celebrities convicted of crimes in Los Angeles. Specifically, the affluent cells operate under the pay-to-stay programs where the wealthy convicts pay a specific amount of money to stay in the cells and enjoy amenities such as cellular services as well as bring their food.  The celebrities are protected from the squalor, brutality and poor living conditions present in standard prison facilities.  The southern California scenario presents the great divide between the rich and the poor (Clarke, 2010).  The criminal justice system appears to demonstrate that there is a certain group of people that deserve special treatment if they are convicted of a crime. 

A celebrity accused of rape may receive a jail term for a conviction for his crime but may be sent to the self-pay jails thus losing the purpose of the conviction.  A conviction for prison is the criminal justice system’s strategy of helping the accused modifies his behavior.  The provision of high-end prisons for celebrities loses the conviction purpose thus increasing the risk of repeated behavior upon release.

            According to Heil & Shoemaker (2012), there is increasing public concern over the rise of a sex offender in the past two decades.  The risk of recidivism is high if the prisoner does not receive adequate behavior modification treatment methods.  Celebrities accused of rape are likely to repeat the offense if their case is handled lightly thus resulting in their release.  There is a need for the criminal justice system to handle cases involving celebrities seriously and handle them like how they would handle any average citizen.  An offense does not become less criminal because of the status of the offender (Heil & Shoemaker, 2012).  Rape victims deserve justice and thus the need for the criminal justice system to demonstrate that even a victim violated by a celebrity can present her case and get a fair trial. 

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in online nursing papers if you need a similar paper you can place your order from medical essay writing service online.