The Russell Brand Revelations Highlight the Problematic Use of ‘Allegation’ in Cases of Sexual Violence

Semantics matter; it’s a ‘report’ of sexual violence, not an ‘allegation’

In my years investigating serious sexual offences, how many perpetrators do you think admitted their crimes?

What about the convicted sex offenders I visited in the community to assess their risk to the public. How many of them do you think owned up to their heinous offending?

The answer is one.

One predator out of hundreds admitted his wrongdoing. The rest blamed their victim, cried “consent,” or straight up denied any involvement.

Yet, the evidence I gathered or read contradicted them.

The language we use when describing what a perpetrator says versus what a victim says is biased in favour of the perpetrator.

Yes, there’s a code enshrined in law for innocent until proven guilty.

But, in the interest of victim-focused investigation, it is imperative we apply a similar code to the victim, perhaps a “believed as fact until proven otherwise”?

The police come under scrutiny for many things, and quite rightly so.

But this is one area my police force got right. During my service, we changed the acceptable language in and around victims of sexual violence contacting the police. The term “allegation” was replaced with the word “report”.

For instance, during a shift handover, we may receive a summary as follows:

“A 29-year-old female is awaiting a medical examination and is with a sexual offences liaison officer. She reports being raped by a male known to her within her own home address.”

Language matters

Which sounds stronger to you?

Eighteen women allege that Donald Trump sexually harrassed them.

Or

Eighteen women report that Donald Trump sexually harrassed them.

If you look up the definition of “allegation” via Google, you will learn it means:

“A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.”

The term allegation sprinkles doubt into the mix.

We automatically assume allegations are unfounded, malicious, or without grounds. The very term induces an eye roll. I do it myself, and I must consciously pull my mind away from a biased and misleading thought process of “Here we go again, what unfounded claptrap are they coming out with now?”

Perpetrator bias from the offset

When the victim “alleges” and the perpetrator “says,” who sounds more believable? Who sounds more sincere, certain, and steadfast? Who sounds like they have a clearer account of the incident in question?

In most of the headlines featuring Russell Brand, the word allegation refers to the victim’s account. And any reference to his reply stipulates “Russell Brand says…” or “Russell Brand denies…”.

This pattern is repeated in every single case of sexual violence

It’s the same rhetoric with every case that hits the media.

Tell me what you notice about this opening paragraph in an article in the US Magazine about Danny Masterson.

“Danny Masterson made headlines in 2017 when he was first accused of sexual assault. He has since pleaded not guilty after being charged in June 2020 with allegedly raping three women.”

Danny Masterson wasn’t charged with “allegedly” raping three women; he was charged with raping three women!

Similarly, when I charged perpetrators with rape or other sexual offences, the use of the word “allegedly” was nowhere to be seen.

So why couldn’t this article have read, “He has since pleaded not guilty after being charged in June 2020 for raping three women.”

They may as well have added even more doubt and used the word supposedly and a little winking emoji.

It’s time to flip the semantics

Like I said at the start, we changed our language in the police force I served in. Maybe the media could do the same.

I get it; everyone is so scared of defamation cases, but what about defamation of the victim? The term ‘allegation’ and its variants of ‘allegedly’ or ‘alleges’ discredits victims.

Imagine if the breaking news about Russell Brand read as follows:

Four women report incidents of sexual abuse by Russell Brand. Russell Brand alleges all his sexual interactions were consenual.

It’s very simple: if you aren’t happy with the word “alleges” in this context, then why aren’t you disputing its use in the context of the victims?

Ok, I admit, maybe this semantics twist is a step too far; perhaps this creates a bias of guilt toward the perpetrator outside the fair legal process. But sometimes, flipping language can help us understand the ubiquitous language problem areas.

I understand the argument that the backbone of law is based on a presumption of innocence. And this is a sound and fair point. But isn’t it high time victims are afforded a similar code of dignity? A “believed as fact until proven otherwise” sort of presumption?

Because the harsh fact remains that the word allegation is misleading, it skews viewpoints and creates skepticism from the offset.

Thanks for reading Ali Hall