Legal Realism and Sociological Jurisprudence: Changing the Domestic Violence Culture Ecosystem

Introduction

Pre-existing cultural beliefs, stereotypes, and misconceptions have always tainted discussions around the crime of domestic violence and marital rape cases around the world. The patriarchal system permeates the cracks in the judicial system, which is unable to keep up and taints the decision-making in domestic violence cases. The courts heavily rely on conventional evidence criteria to guide their inquiry in these cases as they work to show the harassing nature of the act. The principal witness is the survivor since their abuse is the key element of the domestic violence offence, which also takes the form of marital rape. The victim’s testimony, coupled with any pertinent corroborating evidence, may serve as the only foundation for the conviction of the accused. Courts establish the credibility of victim testimony to determine an actual narrative of the offence through witness interrogation.¹

This study will examine two different types of domestic violence, specifically in the context of marital rape cases, in order to conduct a jurisprudential examination. The first type of case is referred to as “cases of self-generated fault” as a warning against mechanical judgment and legal formality. The next is known as “cases involving compromises within a marriage system which itself stems from the legal system”, and they are used as illustrations of a specific judicial predisposition to “remedy” marital rape through compromise and even by narrow legal readings, even if the rights of the parties are affected by concurring legal provisions.

Cases of self-generated fault

Courts have relaxed the requirements in domestic violence cases by adopting a more victim-centred approach. The Domestic Violence Act of 2005 specifically relaxed many rigid structures to encourage women to report incidents of domestic violence.² This includes making it easier for victims to obtain protective orders and testify in court, even without physical evidence, to ensure their safety and provide them with legal protection. The focus has shifted from strict evidentiary requirements to prioritising the safety and well-being of the individuals involved. Prior sexual experiences and a lack of resistance were no longer seen as crucial factors that could harm the victim’s claim in both domestic violence and marital rape cases all over the world. In this particular context, the case of John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard³, comes as a hurdle as the court’s judgment is based not on substantial evidence but on satisfying the public opinion in light of the character of Ms Amber Heard and Mr Johnny Depp.

The opinion of the public was also not based on reasoned or logical deductions and inferences but rather on the so-called media court’s portrayal of the parties and the act of shaming the parties on the basis of their prior actions, rather than the case at hand. These opinions were the deciding points of the Judges to come to a so-called valued judgment.⁴ Interestingly the Court even took into account various occasions where Ms Amber Heard had the chance to file charges of domestic violence but did not do so. Further, it also took into account the previous relationship testimonies to assess the character of Ms Amber Heard. All of this props from the various memes and social media’s influence on the trials, where Ms Heard has already been judged guilty by the supreme media court. Since on this evidence, her resistance was not evident the court concluded that her testimonies were inadmissible.

The Court’s ruling in Amber Heard case confirms the worst assumptions made by legal realists. According to legal realism, Judges’ reactionary wills, rather than the development of their objective reasoning, determine the law that is decided in courts at the appellate stage.⁵ According to legal realists, the law is unknowable since it is founded on a Judge’s predictable, normative responses to typical factual patterns, or situation types, as opposed to established legal principles. Judges use laws and legal concepts to support their innate judgments about various situational situations. Realists also contend that Judges establish normative benchmarks for their adjudication, where they look to what is considered “normal practice” in society to shape their conception of right and wrong.

The Court’s ruling has judicial errors in it when it holds the victim’s actions accountable. First of all, tales of domestic harassment and especially marital rape cases do not exhibit patterns that may be predicted or conscious reactions.⁶ In circumstances of intense stress and panic, deductive reasoning and mental abilities are frequently impaired, according to a psycho-social perspective of domestic harassment.⁷ This ambiguity does not imply that there is not enough evidence to convict the accused or that the account is unreliable. Secondly, the Court’s distinction between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp’s fault is based on character as portrayed by memes and social media and adjudicates the matter on the basis of their own opinion,⁸ which is formulated on the basis of public acceptance and the public image of the judicial system. The function of Judges in the adjudicatory process is also highlighted in the legal realists’ account, though. Judges in India have gone beyond their statutory responsibilities and frequently engaged in judicial activism to further the interests of justice since they are stakeholders obligated by an ethical duty to promote societal advancement. It is important to look at the benefits of this activity and the several ways it manifests.

Cases involving compromises within a marriage — Going on a par with interest based adjudication

Moving further from the adjudication process in domestic violence to marital rape in the Indian context, which is based on the ostensible interest of the society. As seen by its ruling in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan⁹, courts frequently assumed the role of “social engineers” in formulating authoritative rules to close legal loopholes in situations of rape and sexual harassment.¹⁰ The Karnataka High Court’s decision of Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka¹¹ although provides a nuanced and holistic understanding of the conviction for marital rape, the Supreme Court’s stay order and the precedent of various High Courts and Supreme Courts regarding the balance of the victims right and the paternalistic societal interests post a serious threat to women’s rights.

As women are viewed as “honour” repositories for their families and communities, their adjudication frequently focuses on the social stigma associated with domestic violence or rape victims in India and globally.¹² Due to the fact that in Indian society only matrimony is permitted sexual activity and marital rape is not punished, there is a strange trend among this group of rape cases that I refer to as “marital compromise” cases. The premise of these instances is that matrimony allows for any kind of sexual engagement, even if it is not voluntary.

All sexual interactions, even those that are not voluntary, are sanctioned by marriage and the women’s whole individual identity is aligned with it.¹³ This trend is so serious in the Indian patriarchal society and the entire basis for not considering domestic violence in the context of marital rape is the social and cultural roots attached to marriage and the so-called role of women. This again stems from the typical rape cases in India where the Judges ask the accused to wed the victim and protect her honour in an effort to utilise marriage as a solution for rape.¹⁴ Famously, India’s previous Chief Justice was cited as asking the perpetrator, who was already married if he would be prepared to marry the victim in a case where he had sexually assaulted her multiple times when she was a kid.¹⁵

Prominent advocate of sociological jurisprudence Roscoe Pound developed a “theory of interests” to promote social engineering in the legal system.¹⁶ Judges are social engineers who use the law as a tool to maximise the interests of the greatest number of individuals with the least amount of friction. They aim to achieve an abstract “ideal picture”, in which society would prioritise the general good. In order to accomplish this, the Judge would assemble and organise a repository of each stakeholder’s interests. According to Pound, there are three main types of interests: personal (which encompasses personality, household interests, and material interests), public (this covers the State’s objectives as a guardian of the people and as a legal body), and social (it encompasses goals for universal security, personal prosperity, and total growth).

After outlining the many mechanisms by which they could be secured, Pound sought to weigh or “balance” these interests alongside one another as people belonging to the same group of interests, without assigning any sort of interest special weightage or neglecting interests. In his thesis, he listed a number of personal and social interests, including those related to a person’s dignity and reputation as well as their preferences for marriage and other domestic relationships. He believes that using the law will help to attain this equilibrium. “Rights” are relegated to a distinct sphere in Pound’s theory since it emphasises interests. One could argue that the court tries to level the playing field and understand the wants and desires of both the victim and the offender in domestic violence cases involving compromise or settlement. While the guilty want to escape punishment, the victim is trying to satisfy her personal interests of honour, credibility, and retaliation against physical abuse and marital rape. These distinct individual interests are reflected in the Judge’s repository. According to the Judge, maintaining “honour” and the social fabric is likewise in the public interest. In this context, domestic violence in the form of marital rape presents a turn where the Judge’s opinion is based on the interests of the society, moving against the fabric of realism to more majoritarian views which are based on presupposed women’s role and societal paternity beliefs.

Moving ahead, the court uses its inherent authority as a restricted instrument because it is uncommon to achieve total concord between the interests of the accused and the victim. The goal of marriage-based legitimisation is to lessen conflict between social groups. The largest criticism of the court’s strategy in cases involving verdicts based on public opinion is their narrow perspective on the endeavour of social engineering. The Court treats such cases as isolated incidents rather than attempting to significantly alter the status quo, converting the fault-allocation paradigm of judicial processes into a conflict resolution process. Domestic violence and marital rape instances can have a systemic impact when they are not viewed in isolation but rather as a component of an ecological system of a patriarchal culture that thrives thanks to the social stimuli provided by the interactions of its many parts. The rape structure and specifically the marital rape structure is a culmination of layers such as unofficial assistance from family, availability of legal systems and recovery programmes, acknowledgement of rape myths and victim revictimisation through means for reparation.¹⁷

These layers result in metanarratives that, among other things, teach society’s members to blame themselves, shame victims, and release society from its obligation to mould the defendant and label him a deviant.¹⁸ While Pound thought that in order to achieve the “ideal” equilibrium between interests, he would need to win over the public, an astute, comprehensive reality where the judgment, as a significant stakeholder, can influence public opinion in order to advance gender equality as a shared objective.¹⁹ The subject of domestic violence, and particularly marital rape, cannot be separated from notions of gender roles and stereotyped morality²⁰ as the law itself is a part of social control as per Pound.²¹ According to feminist theory, “rape” cannot be eradicated as a standalone act from patriarchy without also eradicating patriarchy.

If Judges are given more authority as stakeholders, their intentional involvement with the culture of domestic abuse may result in argumentative conflicts with prevailing wisdom that will sway public opinion and open the door to even greater justice for women.²²

Conclusion

Promoting a two-step process is the key to eradicating the patriarchal culture and enabling the efficient resolution of domestic violence cases. First and foremost, understanding domestic violence and marital rape structure better should be the main goal. Rather than viewing cases as isolated incidents carried out by abnormal people, we should consider them as the product of a natural environment that keeps men from developing emotionally and instils in them stories that justify their right to control and dominate women sexually. When courts seek to connect with all stakeholders and acknowledge their position in the ecological framework of violence against women culture while also understanding their interconnected influence in generating a harasser, the impact of such judicial decisions will be challenged by popular opinion and affect society. It is essential to strengthen the capacity of juries and Judges as participants to arrive at “value-free”, well-informed choices as they perform their responsibilities as social engineers, as legal realists have highlighted the unique tendencies of juries and Judges and their incapacity of developing “good” laws that do not depend on instincts.