go see the movie, and post your response (you can also view on dvd/vhs on your own).
MOVIE NIGHT: 'THE ACCUSED'
The kickoff event to raise awareness about sexual assault is the showing of "The Accused" from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., Monday, April 9, in 252 SEC. The movie features Jodi Foster and tells the true story of a woman who was raped and her experiences with the criminal justice system.
The movie The Accused was very frustrating to watch. It was hard for me to sit and watch what happended to this girl, and to know that is was based on a true story absolutely disgusted me. The ending of the movie was the best part because Sarah got the justice she deserved.
The first intersection between psychology and law was when Sarah was scared to go back to The Mill, the place she was raped. The detective and prosecuter wanted her to go back to see if she could identify who raped her. Here she was taken back to the scene of the crime where the incident was fresh in her head. She was able to identify two of her rapist there because she remembered their faces.
The defense used psychology by trying to play off that no rape ever occured when releasing information to the public. They said she had willingly consented to having sex with the men. This hurt Sarah bacause she had been through so much. What really disgusted me was how the one of the men accused of the rape and his friends were cheering when the defense gave their statement on tv.
When the prosecution first met with the defense psychology was definitely present. She told them they had medical proof of penetration and force, which was true. She lied saying there was plenty of witnesses who would prosecute for the people. Here she was bluffing because she had already talked to the bartender and Sarah's friend who worked at The Mill and nobody admitted into knowing anything. Here the prosecution had to negotiate, and ended up lowering the charges to reckless endangerment instead of rape.
Sarah was emotionally troubled after her rape. After the rape charges were dropped she cut her own hair because she needed a change. She could not emotionally cope with what was happening to her. Also when her boyfriend tried kissing her she pushed him away because it made her remember what had happened to her, and she didn't know how to mentally deal with it.
Psychology was also present when the prosecuter was getting upset when Sarah was talking to her after hitting the man's truck. Sarah was telling her how she didn't care about her, and etc. This made the prosecuter cry. This relates to one of our chapters and lectures because it is important for prosecuters to remain emtionally detached from their cases otherwise it interferes with their personal lives. After this incident the prosecuter started working harder and putting more effort into this case because Sarah made her feel like she wasn't doing enough. From getting emotionally involved in the case the prosecuter decided to try the men who watched and cheered while she was getting raped because if they win Sarah's rape will be put on record.
Psychology and law intersects again when one of Sarah's friend helped the prosecuter identify men in a lineup. She was indentifying the men who had encouraged the others while raping Sarah. She was relying on her memory of that night to assist in the indentifications.
Behavioral psychology was present when Sarah showed up for her first day in court dressed in a dress suit. These are not clothes she would normally wear, she was trying to make a good impression on the judge and jury. From lecture we know appearance is very important when forming our first opinions of a person. Also from the first day in court Sarah was the expert witness. She had to give her testimony of what happened of the night she was raped. She had to tell the entire court what what happened to her while she was being raped. She was relying on her memory recall to be able to testify.
Social psychology was present when Ken was talking to Bob about testifying. Bob wanted Ken to lie because he didn't want to face 5 years in prison. This got to Ken because he said he was going to recant his testimony, and say he didn't remember what happened that night. Ken would say the prosecuter coerced him. He is doing this because his friend is in jail, and he doesn't want to go against his friend. This actually doesn't happen because Ken felt guilty after talking to Sarah, and she kept asking why he would lie and it makes him just as bad as the rest of the men. Ken was letting the people around him dictate what he was going to testify, but he spoke the truth in court because he knew i was the right thing to do.
Social psychology was aloso present when the rape was occuring. The men in the bar were cheering on the men raping Sarah, and telling them to keep going. If those men weren't cheering and making it seem like it was okay to be raping her maybe the rapes would have stopped. They were all encouraging each other to keep going, they made it seem like almost a game.
Cognitive psychology was present in both the defense and the prosecuter's closing statements. They were both trying to convince the jury that they need to vote in their favor. They used different stories and arguements to make the jury believe that their case was stronger than the others.
The movie The Accused is a movie about a woman named Sarah, and she was gang raped by a bunch of drunken men in a bar. This movie was very disturbing to watch because it was based on a true story.
The most significant part of the movie that was relevant to psychology and law was when the detectives wanted her to return to the scene of the crime to see if she could remember who raped her. Most often, if people return to the scene of the crime when the attack is fresh in their mind they can remember more information. When Sarah went with the detectives to the bar she was able to identify two of her attackers.
Both attorneys also used psychology to help try their cases. The defense attorney used Sarah's promiscuous past to say that the rape never occurred because she was willing. This made me angry because I don't think that any woman would ever want that to happen to them. The prosecution threatened the defense attorney and the clients by saying that she had proof of penetration and use of force. The prosecutor also lied and said she had witnesses who were willing to testify saying they saw the rape occur, but she had already talked to the bartender and Sarah's best friend who both claimed they never saw anything.
Sarah suffered from RTS after her attack. She was very emotionally disturbed and did not know how to deal with it. When her boyfriend tried to be intimate with her she had flash backs of her attack. After the charges were dropped to reckless endangerment, Sarah had another emotional breakdown and chopped all her hair off. Sarah was suffering from an extreme case of rape trauma syndrome and then to add the horrible news of her case she spiraled down.
Sarah was outraged about the deal the prosecutor made with the defense that she rammed her car into a car of a man that had cheered on the guys that raped her. She was hospitalized after hitting his car, and the prosecutor came into to talk to her. Sarah blamed the prosecutor for not trying her hardest to get a rape conviction. The prosecutor broke a cardinal rule by getting to emotionally attached to the victim. Kelley, the prosector felt so bad that she tried her hardest to convict the men that cheered on the rapists. Sarah's friends, the bartender, helped the prosecutor by identifying three of the men that had cheered on the rapists. The prosecution convicted the men of criminal solicitation.
After the prosecution won the trial of the spectators, Sarah's rape was officially put on record and the men that were in prison for reckless endangerment were not allowed parole. The end of the movie was my favorite because Sarah finally got justice for the suffering she endured.
This movie brought up a lot of emotions for me. It was interesting, disgusting, irritating, sad, and satisfying. The most memorable part about this movie for me is that I related it to the story we discussed about the woman who “fell down the stairs.” We discussed that the lawyers weren’t trying to figure out what happened, they were just trying to win the case. I felt that that is exactly what happened in this situation. Neither of the lawyers was actually searching for the truth. The worst part for me in regards to this is that it kept coming back to victim blaming. What were you wearing, what did you say, how were you acting? It’s never the victims fault for being assaulted or raped, yet that is just what they kept coming back to. The fact that she had lower SES, had been doing drugs, and had been drinking made it that much worse.
I believe that there was so much psychology in this movie, it was almost difficult to keep it all straight. The college student who had been accused of raping Sarah was put in prison for “reckless endangerment.” This request was granted because of his age, and his career goals for the future. With this sentence, he could be out on parole in 9 months. I guess I didn’t realize that it could even be a possibility for someone to be put in prison under a different term, serving the same amount of time. This works psychologically for various reasons. Social psychology plays a role here because people will lean away from interacting, marrying, or hiring someone who has been convicted of rape. However, that is what he did, and that should have been what he was sentenced for.
Having her rapists put in prison for reckless endangerment really hurt Sarah because she felt as though the reduction in sentencing meant that no one would hear her story, and it turn, no one cared. She felt that the reduction in sentencing let them off the hook. Sarah was withdrawing from her current relationship and was being harassed in public due to what happened.
Social psychology also played a role in the encouragement that took place in the bar. The encouragement from the onlookers told the rapists that their actions were correct, and they were not doing anything wrong. It was also current with Ken who was afraid of speaking out about what he actually saw for fear of retaliation from the other men, or loss of his social group.
Being a member of the mock trial jury in our classroom, I really paid attention to the way that the attorneys were addressing the jury. They kept making comments acting as though they knew exactly what the jury members were thinking. They also kept trying to convince them to vote in favor of their clients. I can see how this can be really difficult for jury members. It’s hard to hear two parts to the story and attempt to figure out which is right.
Sarah's rapists were eventually sent to prison and required to serve the time for the rape, which they were convicted of. The men who cheered them on were also found guilty and charged. I feel as though this movie was very accurate in the trial process and the various emotions and rough spots that can occur.
I am unable to attend the movie showing tonight so I decided to rent the movie myself. I thought that this was a very good movie, although at some points it was quite graphic. Right from the beginning when it shows the bar, one can see that there is a serious problem. A young woman (Jodi Foster) come running out of the bar crying and half dressed. Finally, someone picks her up and takes her to the hospital. The next scene is also quite graphic. She is now at the jail being inspected for evidence from the rape unit at the police department. I think that in real life, this would be a very scary situation. Jodi Foster’s acting in this scene was pretty amazing. The way she talked was very quiet and modest, which is definitely not like her! I think this was to show that she was in shock about the rape.
The real part of this movie that relates to our class is the criminal proceedings. From the start, people were more worried about the way that she was acting the night of the rape than the actual suspects. Jodi Foster was asked questions such as “Well, what were you wearing?” “Were you drunk?” “Do you usually go to bars alone?” “Oh, but you have a criminal history don’t you?” This is the reason the name of the movie is The Accused; obviously she was the victim but she was getting treated like a criminal. Unfortunately, the accusations against her don’t just stop with questions.
Initially, the prosecutor makes a plea agreement with the defense that changes the charges of Rape to “reckless endangerment.” This makes Jodi Foster very angry. It also makes her very angry that television reporters constantly say that it was not a rape and that she was being provocative. Luckily, the prosecutor figures out a way to bring the men to justice. She decides to prosecute the men in the bar who were cheering the rape on. At first, the district attorney thinks this is a bad idea because it will hurt the reputation of the office. One of the rapist’s friends comes and testifies that it was in fact a rape. This is the point in the movie that was most disturbing for me because of the violent rape scene. In the end, justice is served as all of the men are found guilty by the jury. I really enjoyed the closing statements by the attorneys. I think this movie does a great job of showing how much of a struggle rape victims go through with our criminal justice system. This probably also explains why so many rapes are not reported. Something needs to change.
Extra Credit Blog “The Accused”
While at the hospital after the rape Jodi Foster seemed out of it (she was legally drunk and there was marijuana in her system). The nurse and the rape counselor seemed a bit distant, but not as much as the prosecuting attorney – she seemed emotionless. They portray Jodi Foster as someone that is likely to happen to. I got the impression that other characters in the movie were somehow making this her fault.
Jodi accuses three men as her rapists. The older two seemed like lower class men. The third man is a young college guy with a lot of money. The media coverage of the portrayed Foster as a slutty, low-class women and that the sex was consensual. When this coverage was shown at the college guy’s fraternity the house cheered like it was no big deal.
While the prosecuting attorney was mulling over the facts of the case she mentions that Foster’s record may come up (she was in a car/trailer with cocaine) and even if an objection is sustained in reference to that information the jury still heard it. When the lawyers from the defense and prosecution discuss the charges with hopes of avoiding a trial the prosecuting attorney changes the charges from rape to reckless endangerment.
The movie could have been over there, but then Foster runs into one of the men at a video store. He starts taunting and she rams his car with hers. While in the hospital Foster starts talking about how she never got to say anything, she didn’t get to tell it from her point of view. Her lawyer did all the talking and arguing for her.
The prosecuting attorney decides to go to trial and convict all of the spectators of the rape. If they win then that rape charge would affect the three men already in jail for reckless endangerment and they would have to serve a full five years.
While building the case they use Foster’s friend come in and identify the guys that she saw cheering on the rape. In these line ups there were more than one suspect in the lineup (she picked two men from the first and one man from the second lineup). The prosecuting attorney does a little more investigating and found the other frat boy that was at the bar the night of the rape. He was the one that tried to call the police, just as Foster got away.
Finally, we get to trial and Foster is a witness and testifies. She told the story of her rape as part of this new trial (even though no one was on trial for rape). When Foster was being cross examined the defense made her look like a drunk, pot head and that she enjoyed what was being done to her. Ken, the fat boy’s friend was arrested for reckless endangerment, testifies as a witness. His story is slightly different than Foster’s. She had just gotten into a fight with her boyfriend and she went to the bar and got very drunk. She was kind of leading guys on and starting dancing seductively just before the rape occurred.
During the closing arguments I have to admit that if I were to be on that jury I would have probably thought that there was room for reasonable doubt. However, in this movie we were shown what actually happened and this made anything the defense said seem weak. But, had I only been hearing the case from within the court I probably would have said not guilty for those men that watched. Luckily things went differently in the movie (all three men brought to trial for criminal solicitation, or those that watched and cheered the rape on, were found guilty), but it just goes to show how much of this responsibility is on the lawyers and no matter how open and shut a case may be in reality it matters how well the case is argued from either side.
This was a very interesting movie. I am glad that I was able to see it. Outside of this class I would not have watched a movie about rape.
I had never seen this movie prior to watching it for class. I thought that it was pretty good in that the story it told was good how society blames the victims for being raped and it should be the other way around but I wouldn't have picked to watch this movie in my free time because it is about rape and it is quite graphic.
From the start of the movie you could guess that its going to be very visual. It starts with Sarah running out of the bar with her clothes ripped and screaming. Then it shows her either in the police station/hospital or somewhere being examined. Sarah just looks out of it and she can barely talk she just seems shook up. When the attorney and detective ask her to go back to the mill to identify the rapists she seems very leery at first. Which makes sense being it had just happened and she is still fresh in her mind. Within minutes of the attorney meeting Sarah she doesn't seemed concerned about getting justice for Sarah its about winning the case, which is messed up! I have seen this happen before in other movies. On the tv it says that she consented to the sex which makes Sarah really upset. Then the attorney starts asking her questions about what she was wearing, about her criminal record, if she smoked before she was at the mill the night she was raped, etc. This is a common view that the victim was asking for it. No one would ever asked to be raped.
The attorneys were all talking about the charges and changes them from rape to reckless endangerment. I had no idea that they can just change charges so it doesn't look badly on a record in the future. This shouldn't happen in my opinion because if someone can do something that badly and violent I don't think it would be fair for it to not be held against them in the future. Even though they would be serving the same amount of time it just still isn't fair to have that erased just like that. When Sarah hears about this she is outraged and comes to the attorneys house. Later when Sarah is at a music tape store one of the men that was cheering comes up to her and starts harassing her. This sets her off so much that she rams her car into his and ends up in the hospital. When her attorney comes to see her Sarah makes her feel like she hasn't done anything to help her because she wanted to tell her story. This makes the lawyer change and she begins devoting herself to getting those men responsible in trouble along with the men that were cheering. She even finds the man who called the police to report there was a woman being raped at the mill. His friend scares him into not testifying otherwise he will spend five years in prison. In the end Sarah pressures him and makes him realize that it is the right thing to do. This relates directly to social psychology.
Overall, this movie conveying an important fact that its never rape victims fault that they were raped. This should be made more aware for people of society to prevent future victims from this stereotype.