The Accused is a movie filled with anguish as a woman seeks justice against her assailants, and in a way is a wake-up call for men to respect, instead of oppressing women. It is based on the real life incident of 1983 when Cheryl Araujo was gang raped at Big Ban’s Bar in New Bedford. Sarah goes to this bar “The Mill” to clear off her head after some fight with her boyfriend. At the bar, she meets Danny, who offers her and her friend Sally some drinks before proceeding to play some pinball with him.
Later a song that she loves so much plays at the jukebox and she decides to dance to the rhythm of it. Danny joins her and holds her so close to the point that he refutes resistance from Sarah. Before Sarah knows it, Danny thrusts her on the Pinball machine and with the help of Kurt, who hold her down, he rapes her.
Bob and Kurt then take their turns in the rape after being solicited by the spectators. In the long-run however after a failed attempt, Sarah with the help of the District attorney Kathryn Murphy, receives justice when the three solicitous spectators are charged with the criminal offense of inciting others. This paper therefore will give a critical analysis of this movie “The Accused”.
A bystander is any person who witnesses a situation. The bystander effect is the response a bystander takes in relation to that which he or she witnesses. The key bystanders of rape in ‘The Accused’ were Kenneth, Kurt, Bob, and Sally. Kenneth did not take any action at the time of the assault however, after he had stormed out of the bar, he called the police. Kenneth’s intervention was after the incidence. His action can be explained by the bystander effect being a pro-social bystander (Lecture 1).
The bystander effect hypothesized by Latane and Darley (1970) discussed in lecture 2, slide 25 is one approach that could be used to explain Kenneth’s action. According to Latane’s and Darley’s (1970) intervention decision tree way of explaining the bystander effect, five steps are involved. To begin with, Kenneth noticed an event. Secondly, he considered it an emergency. Thirdly, he assumed responsibility. Fourthly, he sought an appropriate way through which he could help. He executed the fifth step when he called the police, who later showed up and rescued Sarah at the highway. The social exchange theory discussed in lecture two also explains Kenneth’s behavior. Since he analyzed the situation and factored in mind the negative consequences that it could bring on him like imprisonment and feelings of guilt, he decided to save himself by calling the police; not that he cared for Sarah. His way of helping irrespective of the fact that it was for beneficial reasons satisfies Ribal’s (1963) helping-orientation model mentioned in lecture 2. Based on this model, Kenneth helped to gain inner-sustenance since his desire to help was autonomous, and for selfish reasons in the sense that he did not want to be part of the consequences and wanted to free himself of any guilt.
In addition, the diffusion of responsibility could also be used to explain the bystander effect in relation to Kenneth’s action. According to this diffusion of responsibility, the responsibility of a bystander to act with reference to an event dwindles as the number of bystanders increase. Also, people have a higher tendency of taking responsibility when they are alone compared with when they are in a crowd.
Lastly, it also means that the decisions and perceptions of bystanders can be negatively influenced by the actual or imagined presence of others (Lecture 1). Using diffusion of responsibility to explain bystander effect with regard to Kenneth’s situation, while in the midst of his male peers at ‘The Mill’, he did not do anything. However, after he had come out of the bar and was alone, he took the responsibility of calling the police.
Kurt helped Danny in executing the rape. He chose not to help Sarah, but instead sided with his male counterparts. Diffusion of responsibility could be used to explain his action in that Kurt’s action was as a result of the negative influence by his male counterparts who shouted to him that he holds Sarah down, and later rape her.
His choice to intervene in the rape was guided by selfish action and could be explained by the social exchange theory as discussed in lecture 2. According to social exchange theory, altruism or helping others at the cost of oneself, or unselfishly does not exist. Instead, people will only help others because of their own self interests. Kurt chose to side with his male counterparts because he knew that they were likely to help him in the future.
Examples from Edward’s key study (1975) in lecture 2 slide 12 have been used to support the social exchange theory. In the examples given, individuals will refrain from embarrassing situations like returning a dropped box of tampons to its owner, compared with a purse. The later is more heroic and less embarrassing compared with the box of tampons.
Therefore, ethical egoism (lecture 3) reinforces the social-exchange theory in explaining Kurt’s behavior since he acted out of selfish interest; to gain heroic recognition among his male peers by giving in to their yells and chants.
According to the in-group theory stated in lecture 3, individuals will help those with whom they share similar characteristics, respectively. In the case of the accused, Kurt chose to help Danny because they both belonged to the same group as males, and were patrons at the tavern.
Bob contributed towards executing the negative behavior (rape). Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis discussed in lecture 2 explains his action in that his action promoted his self interests thus acting in accordance with the social exchange theory. Also, his desire to fulfill his self interests complies with the ethical egoistic theory in lecture 3. Therefore, he did not feel empathy for Sarah, and that is why he acted the way he did.
The in group verses out group hypothesis stated in lectures 2 and 3 also influenced his choice of action since he chose to intervene by joining hands with those individuals with whom he shared certain similar characteristics as males (in group). This is because, in virtually all cultures, individuals will tend to help those people who are in the same group with them: the in groups, and not the out groups.
Sally remained inactive and just witnessed the whole ordeal. She is a perfect implication of voyeurism in lecture 1. She just stood back and watched as her friend was savaged by the gang of patrons in the bar. Her inactivity is a manifestation of the social exchange theory. This is because she failed to intervene due to the fear of being the next victim. In addition, her inactivity could also be a reflection of pluralistic ignorance as stated in lecture 9 where women like her regard such acts to be normal, and her position as a woman was not enough to help her friend.
The key facilitators of the rape were Kurt, Bob, and the three spectators. This is because each contributed towards the rape in his own way. Kurt shifted from being a bystander the minute he immobilized Sarah, and helped Danny rape her. According to Sanday 1981 as shown in lecture 8 slide 3, “rape is not a typical or natural behavior of all societies but instead it is a by-product of male-dominated societies”.
Therefore, Danny’s action was guided by the notion of being in a male-dominated society. His action to restrain Sarah showed his need to show off his male-domineering character in addition to his macho appearance. This was also an indication of disrespect and contempt for the woman. Kurt’s demeanor could make him a promoter of rape culture, and that could be a reason why he supported Danny.
According to Johnson (1997) as discussed in class, patriarchy does not serve its actual purpose. Whereas, he views patriarchy as entailing men’s competition amongst their selves, oppression and violence against women have been fundamental elements of patriarchy instead. Johnston states that a patriarchal system is one characterized by male dominance, male centeredness, and male identification since it is about power.
Kurt action therefore was guided by patriarchy: the need to gain power, which unfortunately entailed oppression against Sarah as if she were some kind of toy (lecture 8). Since power among men is gained by proving to be a real man, Kurt gained this by bonding with his fellow men over Sarah, as a sexual object. Male peer support as discussed in lecture 9 also triggered his action because he immobilized Sarah upon hearing the crowd’s yell, “Hold her down…hold her down”.
Bob was also a bystander, playing pinball but later turned out to be a facilitator as he took part in the act. The yells, “Frat boy, frat boy” were an adequate triggering factor that made Bob to proceed on and rape Sarah. Patriarchy was a push factor towards his action. According to the discussion in lecture 8, a patriarchal society is characterized by inequalities in both men and women. Therefore, since all men are not equal, the vulnerable ones like Bob are bound to be harmed by others.
In order to protect themselves from these other men and seek control or illusion of control, they are forced to show that they are real men. It was due to the need of gaining ‘illusion of control’ that Bob committed rape. This way, he was safe from ridicule or threat of violence from these other men (Lecture 8, slide 15). Bob gained power and control by living up to the standards of the “tough guise”. According to Katz (2006), the tough guise involves oppression against women.
The example of “locker room talk” discussed in lecture 8 defines Bob’s action. In the same way that the men in the locker room participated in the locker room interview in fear of social costs of resistance such as being named a “pussy” despite the fact that they were uncomfortable, Bob raped Sarah to gain power and control and thereby avoid ridicule from the other men even though deep in his heart, he was not for the idea.
Further, Bob’s action can be reinforced by the male peer support theory (lecture 9). According to the male support theory, the spectators provided verbal resources that made it seem like violence and rape against Sarah was a normal process. When the crowd called Bob a frat boy, it was a provocative gesture that sought to indirectly tell him that he should show some loyalty to his peers by giving in to their verbal demands that legitimized violence against women and regarded it normal.
The atmosphere round legitimized rape and for someone like Bob, who would have felt guilty, the manner of speech used by the crowd made it seem like it were an enjoyable and normal activity. The crowd therefore adopted a vocabulary of adjustment with the aim of suppressing any feelings of guilt.
Sarah’s behavior and dressing were the reasons why such a vocabulary of adjustment was adopted. Basing on these two factors with reference to Sarah, any man would normalize the rape that day at the bar by saying that she had asked for it. It is because of Sarah’s disposition that a light sentence was placed on her assailants due to the power of this “vocabulary of adjustment” (Lecture 9).
The Three Spectators are portrayed as chauvinists and rape culturists, who seek pleasure by oppressing the woman. According to discussion at lecture 8, men are not equal and various elements define the inequalities that prevail where sexual orientation is one of them. Their action might therefore have been guided by the notion that men have power over women and rape is considered as one way through which this power if asserted (Lecture 8).
They encouraged the negative behavior through their solicitous statements: “Hold her down! Stick it to her! Make her moan…” According to discussions held in class, one thing has been obvious, male bond together over women as sexual objects, or as potential victims of sexual assault (Lecture 8). During this lecture, the video link provided in slide 17 shows how males witness the oppression of women by their male counterparts without raising a finger while in a bar.
Therefore, the incident in the movie comes as a hallmark to clearly show how males have low contempt and disregard for women, and how oppression to the woman is regarded a casual thing. The bar is the place where oppression against women is epitomized. As mentioned earlier on that rape is evident in a patriarchal social system, the behavior of the three spectators support this. Therefore, it was because of the existence of a rape culture that led narrow social construction of masculinity in relation to objectification of a woman.
The key perpetrators were Danny, Kurt and Bob. Danny was the primary perpetrator. The manner in which Danny handled Sarah in the eyes of other men is a clear indication that he was a promoter of rape culture as discussed in lecture 8. In a bid to mark his territory and protect himself from other men, Danny had to increase his sense of control by instilling fear in other men. One way of doing so was by oppressing the women, exactly what Danny did.
His behavior could also be explained by one of the two critical aspects of media culture representations as denoted by Katz (2006), which contribute towards the rapist values (Lecture 8, slide 24) which states that masculinity is equated with power and entitlement over a woman and their bodies. These rapist values seemed to be possessed by Danny and that is why he acted in such a domineering way towards Sarah without minding the public.
Danny’s action at the bar says much about men and sexuality. According to research findings with regard to communication theory, men seem to misperceive women due to various verbal, non-verbal, and situational variables as stated in lecture 6. Basing on this therefore, Sarah’s demeanor led Danny into raping her. This is because she had been drinking and smoking marijuana. In addition, she had flirted with one of her assailants: Danny and she wore skimpy clothes. Any man, even the judge himself, would think that Sarah asked for it.
Danny’s behavior portrays him as a sexually aggressive person, and according to Kanin’s reference group theory discussed in lecture 9 slide 5, he already sought out homo-social peer groups that approved sexual oppression against the woman. As seen in lecture 8, male peers in a bar place will not object exploitation of women.
Therefore, Danny’s acted the way he did because he was a sexually aggressive person, and was very much aware of the fact that male peers in a bar will bond to objectify the woman. That is why he felt no shame whatsoever when he threw Sarah on the pinball machine and forced himself on her. The rape culture element of a patriarchal society is manifests itself after the incidence because, as Sarah
Kurt was initially a bystander, who turned to be a facilitator, and later a perpetrator. He encouraged the negative behavior of rape by making it easy for Danny to have his way. Kurt immobilized Sarah by pinning her arms down the pinball table. Men have naturally been found to be more supportive amongst their selves in nature. Drinking has been illustrated as one of the platforms that promotes male bonding, hence male peer support as per lecture 9.
In addition, it is easier for men to form relationships with each other unlike women. As a result of this, the male peer support theory has been used to explain the attachments possessed by a group of abusive men to other people. It is because of this male bonding, which occurred before the rape, that Kurt did not find it resist in helping out Danny.
Upon helping Danny rape Sarah, the spectators called out for Kurt to take his turn by using vulgar language. They sequentially formulated a vocabulary of adjustment that made the rape activity seem like a normal and fun thing to watch. That is why neither of the patrons could intervene and help Sarah.
This vocabulary of adjustment born out of the male peer support led Kurt into taking a turn in raping Sarah, and therefore he became a perpetrator as well. According to the concept of rape culture as discussed in lecture 8, all the men who took part in the act could be assumed to be supporters of the rape culture. Bob can be described as an opportunistic rapist according to Robertiello & Terry (2007) as discussed in lecture 10. His role in the incidence was to reinforce a culture of male-dominance as a power assertive rapist.
Bob was initially a bystander, but he turned into a perpetrator. His action was negatively influenced by the spectators as denoted by the male peer support theory. There was immense verbal support from his male counterparts that made him view rape like a normal activity. This could be due to legitimized ideology that men should not be held liable for their actions as dictated by the vocabulary of adjustment (lecture 9). This vocabulary of adjustment legitimizes abuse by considering victims as objects for abuse through use of words such as “she was a slut”.
According to findings in Lecture 8, a large percentage of the university men were noble and not violent. Basing from these findings therefore, Bob acted out of male peer support. As shown in lecture 8, Katz (2006) suggests that men prove themselves as real men, and gain power and control by living up to the standards of the tough guise, where oppression of the woman is an indicator of this.
Therefore, as a result of this requirement, Bob acted with the desire to achieve a goal. The goal was to prove that he was a real man in the eyes of his fellow men, and also gain power and control over the woman.
Kurt is the one pro-social bystander whose intervention before the assault would have had the highest likelihood of success. If he would have acted out of pure altruism, then he would have stopped the rape. In accordance with the Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis as discussed in lecture 2, if Kurt would have empathized with Sarah, he would have helped her even though he would have gained nothing out of helping her.
His personality was enough to resist Danny on Sarah’s behalf and instigate commotion that would have given Sarah the chance to escape from the bar. As a result he would have been a loyal promoter of patriarchy as argued by Alan Jonhson (1997) in lecture 8 (slide 12) that it should be between men, and not oppression towards the woman.
Kenneth would have been a potential pro-social bystander whose intervention during the assault would have had the highest likelihood of success. He was the one who was at the right state of mind, not being influenced by the crowd and owing to the notion that university men tend to be noble as seen in lecture 8, he was the right man to intervene during the assault. Out of pure altruism, Kenneth should have called the police right away and not wait for the men to rape Sarah in turns.
After calling the police, he would have directly intervened to try and stop Bob from raping Sarah all in the name of “tough guise” as discussed earlier. Even though it would have been at the cost of himself, he would have abated the rape while waiting for the police to arrive. He may not have been a hero of patriarchy as perceived in rape culture, but he sure would have been a hero of learned social norm (lecture 2, slide 9).
Sally would have been a potential pro-social bystander whose intervention after the assault would have had the highest likelihood of success. This is as explained by gender as a personal determinant of choosing to help. As shown in lecture 2, slide 20, women tend to offer nurturing help where long commitment is involved.
Therefore, Sally would have been the person to help Sarah pick up her broken pieces and seek justice by providing her with long-term emotional and psychological support. Even if she did not know or have the skills to do so, she would have lured and fully supported her friend into seeking psychological and professional help.
References
Johnson, A. G. (1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Katz, J. (2006). The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help. California: Sourcebooks.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lecture 1. (2012). What is the Bystander Effect? Practical Strategies for Social Change.
Lecture 2. (2012). Why do we help? Social Psychological Theories. Practical Strategies for Social Change.
Lecture 3. (2012). Why do we help? Philosophical Perspectives. Practical Strategies for Social Change.
Lecture 6. (2012). Sexual Coercion. Practical Strategies for Social Change.
Lecture 8. (2012). Why Sexual Assault? Feminist Theories and “rape culture”. Practical Strategies for Social Change.
Lecture 9. (2012). Why sexual assault? Male Peer Support Theories. Practical Strategies for Social Change.
Lecture 10. (2012). Why Sexual Assault? Predatory Theory. Practical Strategies for Social Change.
Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 508-518.