The film The Accused emphasizes the importance of a feminist view of the American legal system. The film debunks myths about a rxxe or a rxxe-victim. The feminist perspective towards the justice system in the United States, states that it is patriarchal in nature and inclined towards the likes and dislikes of men. Historically, American judges have often portrayed some level of gender inequality and patriarchy in enforcing legal decisions. It is of utter shame to mention that a field that should be above injustice and discrimination, has its advocates rely on gender inequality and patriarchy in legal decision making. For instance, the film The Accused bears a particular scene which is precisely divided into two parts, where in the first part, the rxxe-victim, during the investigation procedure, is questioned about her outfit on the night of the rxxe. In the second part of the scene, the Deputy District Attorney also enquires about the details of the victim’s indulgence in alcohol or any other substances. While the second part of the scene can assist the DDA in her investigation to an extent, the first part of the scene where Jodie Foster is questioned about her outfit, holds no relevance in the investigation. American judges have historically relied on assumptions about gender that reflected and reinforced patriarchal values in legal decision making, which feminists claim have justified legal forms of gender inequality. Assumptions about women’s roles, in particular the primary responsibility of women for bearing and rearing children, have historically justified legal exclusion of women from the public sphere of society. The 60’s and 70’s witnessed a rise in the demand for oral contraceptives and a rise in divorce rates, hinting that the women of these decades are striving towards achieving economic independence and gender equality. Similarly, the film also portrays the importance of mutual understanding in relationships. While Sarah Tobias is suffering post the incident, her boyfriend, Larry, tries to seduce her without showing any signs of empathy towards here. A devastated Sarah reacts to the situation and orders Larry to leave her house permanently. This particular scene expresses the larger message hidden behind the gender roles portrayed in the film. The misconception that the sole purpose of a female’s existence is to provide physical pleasure is prevalent till today. The fact that men still believe that women exist only to satisfy their sexual needs is an inhumane flaw which deserves immediate attention. Since the commencement of feminism, feminists all around the world have put in constant efforts to wipe out this misconception. Their struggle to wipe out this misconception cannot escape the eyes of advocates of law. Pioneers of law, attorneys, advocates and judges have contributed towards the feminist movement in the process of legal decision making. Law in its nature, is extensive and imposes a great influence on the society and its people. The influence of law begins on every “person” in the context of the “state” from the very birth of that “person” in the society and this influence in an individual’s life is increasing at an alarming rate. The justice system all over the world at an inconsistent pace has been delivering inputs to the society in the sphere of gender equality keeping in mind, the importance of equal opportunity and economic independence. They have been aiding this process by establishing and enforcing rights to individuals in the society. The impact of laws on women’s lives can be illustrated by the following examples. Denying women the right to acquire, manage and dispose of assets in their own name limits their economic opportunities, productivity and bargaining power in the household (as well as more broadly). If we categorize rights into two types, consisting of primary and secondary rights, where the former consists of rights like right to life, liberty, to practise a profession of their choice or by large any human rights and the latter consists of rights like right to property, right to alimony etc, it is of utter shame that till today, discussions about secondary rights are held while women are still deprived of primary rights. While to refute my argument, it would be said that there is extensive proof of various landmark judgements that have upheld gender equality and justice towards women in various cases such as domestic abuse, dowry deaths etc. but what I would like to argue is that what good is the prestigious justice system if it cannot provide justice to the victim within a just and a reasonable period of time. In plain terms, what I mean to convey is that due to inefficiency and a slow-moving process of trials in courts, the victim goes through years of trauma and stress. The process of an investigation and trial takes years to come to an end, and still the chances of an end that provides justice are thin. Though not too much of time is not emphasized on this in today’s world, but a lot of time was spent on discussion about the woman’s character and social life during the investigation and trial process. Though the victim’s social life and daily activities are imperative for the obvious reasons of investigation, it is utterly unacceptable to have a discussion regarding this in legal decision making. Several times, judges have baselessly held discussions on the woman’s character while passing judgements. Discussions about their outfits, their sexual preferences are held while being blinded by patriarchy and sexism. While simply not being able to realise fundamentals of gender equality.
A comparison of the Accused can be drawn to the Indian film Pink, a comparison that can be drawn from two similar stories set out in different times and different places. The comparison tells us that from 1988 ( release of the film The Accused ) to 2016 ( release of the film Pink ), there is no improvement in the narrative around the victim’s character ( precisely, a woman ) while being discussed in courtrooms or during the trial. Regardless, the issues revolving around gender have been very well discussed in the film, constantly emphasizing on the conditions of working-class women in India. It is through Deepak Sehgal, a retired lawyer, that the ideas of how the society has maintained the rule-book for women for their character-sketch, and how grim the reality of a patriarchal culture (which most of us are happy to be in denial of) is, are enforced. Though the film stands out as a pillar for gender equality and justice, there are certain flaws embedded in its take on the judiciary. Very little substantial evidence is provided for the judge to draw a conclusion and most of the proceedings are based on oral evidence and assumptions. The makers of the film have chosen law as an authority only to legitimize a pre-existing public issue that needed to be woven with court-room scenes and an astonishing character of an advocate, Deepak Sehgal played by Amitabh Bachchan. On a specific note, the cross-questioning sequence in the film is far from logic to which only a pro-women tone is exercised instead of pointing out the fallacies in the cross-questioning. In other words, it is imperative to take cognizance of the way law as an authority is being portrayed in cinema, not as a tool to build the story for its makers, but to present reality in its depiction. Similarly, a legal principle can be used to portray a message and educate its viewers. This is not simply ineptitude on the part of the film and some of it is obviously deliberate. For instance, the judge takes no cognisance of Deepak Sehgal’s repeated ‘I object’ because the public prosecutor is out-shouting them. The cross-questioning by the prosecutor is also abusive rather than logical and Deepak Sehgal only responds with pro-women rhetoric. This is very different from earlier Hindi cinema with Dev Anand as lawyer (Paying Guest, 1957) in which the emphasis was on argument; there was a sense of something being uncovered by the judicial process, even if this sometimes bordered on the implausible.
The film the Accused compels one to analyse the legal system that’s being portrayed in the film. The first few minutes of the film makes us believe that there is injustice being served in the end until the DDA realised the intensity involved in the situation. An analysis of the entire depiction of justice in this film requires a feminist lens. It is such because like the justice system, every system impacting humans on a day to day basis needs a feminist lens. While I was analysing the film, the questions that I had in my mind were revolving around how laws are structured that deny justice to a woman, on how there can be discrimination in the construction of the legal system. A feminist theory of jurisprudence requires a female standpoint, while law has been structured to a great extent from a male’s standpoint, only keeping in mind the dominance/submission perspective while failing to understand the dynamics of a power structure. Precisely, laws revolving crimes like rxxe, domestic violence and dowry deaths. To understand why this is necessary, one needs to differentiate between the definition of a person and the legal definition of a person. The flaw here is, regardless of which decision you choose to interpret with, you have to display no sense of discrimination towards any person. This point of mine can be argued with an example to make it clear to the reader. Section 497 of the Indian Penal code, contributes to gender inequality in its very roots. It functions with a forefront that no involvement of a female in the section would eventually, cause social good as there is an opportunity for the couple to fix the relationship but evidently is built on gender inequality in the backdrop of this section. Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
“Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rxxe, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.”
2019-10-21-1571686510