The Need for Corroboration
In the past, one aspect of the law in most states that made rape charges very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was the corroboration require- ment, which demanded that the prosecution dis- cover independent evidence to back up the key elements of the complainant’s account. Derived
V I C T IMS OF R AP E S AN D OT H E R S E XUAL AS S AULT S 353
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
hundreds of years ago from the evolution of English common law, the corroboration requirement assumed that serious charges carrying dire conse- quences were not credible without some other sub- stantiation. The belief that the woman’s word alone is not enough to secure a conviction in court is based on several legitimate concerns: that the male is entitled to the presumption of innocence, that certain females might somehow gain some- thing by committing perjury, that defendants charged with rape are immediately—and possibly permanently—stigmatized even if they are later acquitted of all charges, and that conviction carries very severe penalties including, until the 1970s, execution.
Corroboration could take the form of obvious physical injuries; medical and forensic evidence gathered by a doctor; torn clothing; other signs of a struggle; or the testimony of an eyewitness or a third party such as a police officer, family member, or friend who had been promptly told about the assault. But the corroboration requirement was crit- icized as being patently unfair for putting those who endured sexual assaults in the unique position, compared to complainants about other kinds of assaults, of being automatically distrusted without additional “real proof.” To strike a balance, most state laws have been reformed and no longer require corroboration unless the victim is a minor, was previously intimate with the accused, did not promptly report the crime to the authorities, or provides a version of events that is inherently improbable and self-contradictory (Robin, 1977; Stark and Goldstein, 1985; and Austern, 1987).