‘Sensationalism and ignorance in media reports can harm rape cases’
Forensic professor Dr Jagadeesh Narayana Reddy on why the media needs to brush up on its ethics
On the face of it, Jagadeesh Narayana Reddy appears to be an unlikely champion for rape victims’ rights — male, doctor and an expert on forensic medicine, a field that is associated with clinical facts rather than advocacy. But scratch the surface and he is quick to point out that he identifies as a rights-based feminist and activist, and has the credentials to prove it.
Dr Reddy was a member of the two National Committees that formed guidelines for the medico-legal care of victims/survivors of sexual violence. In 2013, he was part of the group which formed the policy and clinical practice guidelines for responding to violence against women for the World Health Organisation. As a consultant for the Centre for Health and Allied Themes, he is a trainer and promoter of the SAFE (Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence) kit project. He is also a member of the Review Board for the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics.
News Tracker met Dr Reddy at the Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre in Bangalore, where he heads the Department of Forensic Medicine. Over the course of a long afternoon, he spoke about how we need to improve the framework within which we address sexual violence, what we can do to protect the rights of rape victims and why he is often frustrated by how the media handles sex crimes. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
How did you come to specialise in this area of forensic medicine?
By choice, not by chance. And once I was in the profession, I wanted to do everything possible to bring the subject on par with other medical specialities.
I believe in taking an activist stance for the rights — primarily, the right to health — of women, children, transgender people, the mentally challenged, the marginalised and the vulnerable.
India has a big sexual violence problem, but many victims never get justice. How do we tackle this issue?
Sexual violence is a public problem, which requires a holistic approach with all stakeholders — the government, police, doctors, media — working in synergy rather than pointing fingers at one another.
The system within which we address rape cases is flawed. Our country has an adversarial system — the prosecution has to prove the case with the responsibility of presenting all the evidence to the satisfaction of the court, while the defence side only has to disprove the prosecution’s case, and cases are counted on the basis of conviction. This is a problem in sexual violence cases where conviction rates are relatively low. If the accused is acquitted or even when the survivor does not turn up in court, the survivor is assumed to have made a false case. This also affects the compensation and rehabilitation that the sexual violence survivor is entitled to, as these are disbursed only if s/he participates in the criminal investigation. The poor conviction rate in sexual violence cases means several cases are not counted for recompense.
IF THE ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED OR EVEN WHEN THE SURVIVOR DOES NOT TURN UP IN COURT, THE SURVIVOR IS ASSUMED TO HAVE MADE A FALSE CASE. THIS ALSO AFFECTS THE COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION THAT THE SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVIVOR IS ENTITLED TO…
Survivors in India cannot opt only for the social support system.
Now contrast this with some states in the US, where the survivor has a choice to approach either the criminal justice system or the social support system. They can report either to rape crisis centres or to the police. The recompense to the survivor is not affected by which system they report to.
In India, we have an all-or-none system, where without a FIR, it is simply a false or non-existent incident. A social investigation system in some states of the USA is concerned only with the survivor’s medical or financial needs and shelter. It does not concern itself with the accused or criminal investigation. I think it is a system which has worked well and can be duplicated here.
Sexual violence involves a lot of health concerns as well. The law has made psychological and physical treatment compulsory for all victims. Doctors not only examine and treat physical injuries and collect trace evidence but also address sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Some lawyers and activists say that the seriousness with which stakeholders treat a sexual violence case depends on the manner in which the examining doctor collects and reports forensic evidence. A rape survivor may see the perpetrator walk free if the evidence was improperly collected, stored or reported. What is your take on this?
Partly, I agree and partly, I disagree. The other stakeholders expect us to be Sherlock Holmes — that the moment a doctor examines a sexual violence survivor, he or she will come out with a verdict. What they don’t understand is that medical evidence is scientific evidence. And scientific procedures can be limited in different circumstances — for example, evidence may be lost if the survivor waits for a longer period of time before undergoing a medical examination. And the doctor doesn’t have a say in when the survivor seeks medical help.
While there may be lapses in some cases — like incomplete examination, improper evidence collected and tested — all negative outcomes of cases are not because of the doctor. Stakeholders have to understand the circumstances and type of sexual violence and the limitations of scientific evidence.
A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THIS EXPANDED DEFINITION [OF RAPE] BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND MEDIA OFTEN LEADS TO VICTIM BLAMING… IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE LACK OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE MEANS NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
Previously, conviction was based on the presence/absence of semen, which purportedly indicates penetration, and physical injuries indicating that the survivor resisted. However, since 2013, the definition of sexual violence has widened. The penis may or may not be involved (as in the case of fingers being used to violate a person), and even if it is, the perpetrator could have used a condom or not ejaculated within the orifices. Physical evidence in such cases is more difficult to gather.
A lack of understanding of this expanded definition by the general public and media often leads to victim blaming — that’s the gender bias playing up again — since it is assumed that the lack of physical evidence means no crime was committed.
A doctor cannot go beyond what is available, but fight for the truth with what is available.
It is widely believed that law enforcement, doctors and lawyers are not sensitive to victims — what are the challenges of working within this system?
Formerly, yes, the Indian police had an attitudinal issue with gender and sexual violence. Today I see some positive changes. Several sensitive police personnel are now out there, but a lot of work is still to be done given the magnitude of the problem.
I have been part of invited faculty that conducted sensitisation programmes for the range (the Karnataka police are divided into ranges) comprising Mangalore, Udupi and Karwar districts, as well as Bangalore police Commissionerate.
I also do advocacy and training for implementing the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. I have been involved in nearly eight separate programmes with the Delhi High Court for judges, police and doctors. A lot of changes have occurred as a result of advocacy towards eliminating bias from the ranks of police, judges and doctors.
We also have to provide for training across hierarchies of each of these stakeholders, and train both top and bottom layers together. Each affects the other in a hierarchical system like ours.
What are your thoughts about the coverage of rape and sexual violence by the media today?
There are two aspects that disturb me about media coverage. The first problem is sensationalism and catchy headlines in order to grab attention. I think there should be regulations for crime reportage so they deliver news sensitively and remain neutral to both accused and victim.
THE MEDIA HAS TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN ATTRACTING VIEWERS’ INTEREST AND NOT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. EVERY SENTENCE AND WORD HOLDS VALUE IN REPORTAGE AS IT INFLUENCES THE MASSES.
The second issue I have is with the lack of knowledge of technicalities. Not much research goes into the medical or legal details pertaining to a crime. To give you an example, when the Supreme Court banned the two-finger test for rape, the Bangalore edition of the Times of India reported the story with the caption that doctors would now use forceps instead of fingers. I was so disturbed that I used my contacts and went all the way to the Bangalore editor but her only response was, “Sorry, we will look into it”. They used half-knowledge to take the verdict totally out of context: it was unbelievable coming from a major publication like the TOI. Nothing came out of my sincere efforts and the damage was done. The wrong message had already been delivered to the readers.
The media must understand who the stakeholders are in any issue they report, understand the changes in laws, understand the compulsions of each stakeholder and talk to the designated spokesperson. They must also do their homework — their own research — before they file a report.
Can providing the gist of a forensic report make a news story stronger?
I work for the prosecution and as per my duty I cannot reveal anything about a case unless it goes through an official channel — via police or an official spokesperson.
A forensic report is for a particular purpose — either for investigation or adjudication in the courts, and not meant for laypersons. If I give examination results to the media, it may publish them out of context. Particularly in a sexual violence case, the media may pick up an irrelevant aspect or they may decide to focus on a detail that allows for a negative portrayal of the survivor’s character. I am totally against violating my ethics regarding this.
Yes, the media can strengthen a story with a quote from forensic experts. That’s where medical journalists should come into the picture — subject matter experts who can deliver curated information from a clinical perspective as well as with a clear understanding of sentiments involved. I think journalism colleges need to focus on developing sub-specialities, especially for medicine which requires a sensitive approach.
THE MEDIA MUST UNDERSTAND WHO THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE IN ANY ISSUE THEY REPORT, UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES IN LAWS, UNDERSTAND THE COMPULSIONS OF EACH STAKEHOLDER AND TALK TO THE DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON.
Finally, transparency is important. Today, we can access registered FIRs online and case proceedings are available to the public in some states. So, why not in all states? Why not at all levels of the judiciary, from the district to the Supreme Court? Except for certain sexual offences like those against children, transparency is not a problem.
Another solution could be to set up an inbuilt online mechanism which can convey necessary information regarding any case, thereby protecting the rights of all involved parties. By doing so, both the media and the public get the big picture of a case rather than misinterpreted reports from different people.
How can the media improve its reporting of sexual violence?
As per the Indian Constitution, the media is a watchdog. There must be a conscious effort to convey the right information while keeping in mind that they cannot go beyond their responsibilities. To ensure this, ethical policies and guidelines must be established to make them accountable to the public. For instance, if a newspaper makes a mistake, it must be published in the corrigendum the next day. The corrigendum must occupy a designated column in the newspaper every day. This will give rise to transparency and authenticity.
The media has to find a balance between attracting viewers’ interest and also not violating the rights of individuals. Every sentence and word holds value in reportage as it influences the masses. There should be a sensitive approach while keeping in mind good ethics, policies and guidelines.
The media has a degree of freedom to spell out its own conclusions, but it also has a duty to ensure that the sources of information are clearly demarcated. It must guard against instigating a media trial even before the court has one. Announcing the guilt of the accused or blaming the victim may change the course of the trial or shift the focus of the story. There is a special set of experts within the system for the social investigation of crimes, and the media need not take part in that.
