Corroborating Evidence In Rape Cases

Under early common law, the elements of rape included forcible intercourse, lack of consent, or consent obtained by force, evidence of extreme resistance, and backed up by corroborating evidence to support the victim’s testimony. While there have been many changes to the definition of rape over the years, the corroborating element meant that the victim’s testimony alone was not sufficient in proving the elements of rape and had to be backed up by corroborating evidence to get a conviction. Strom, 249 (2012).

For example, if a woman testified that she had been raped and had no corroborating evidence, it led to suspicion and criticism on behalf of the validity of the claim. Rape victims are not always physically beaten to support corroborating evidence, especially, in cases where the date rape drug is concerned. Therefore, the corroboration rule is destructive to the victim and renders no remedy if the victim has no evidence to corroborate her testimony. Some courts have contended that other criminal cases do not require corroborating evidence and rape cases should not be any different. J.F. Decker & P. G. Baroni, 7, (2011).

Particularly in cases where the defense claims the sexual activity was consensual. For example, in the past, the victim’s testimony was not enough to support a conviction, so the defense often sought to add moral doubt to the victim’s testimony by cross-examining the victim about past sexual promiscuity and character as a consent defense factor. id. at 250. The slightest discrepancy or inconsistency would further humiliate and throw doubt in the reliably of the victim’s testimony only to further traumatize the individual. In light of this, many rape cases went unprosecuted because victims refused to come forward or dropped the charges out fear of being publicly shamed.