, an article published in Vol. 47 of JLG. This article examines online platforms as a mechanism for
Kathryn Abrams and Deborah Tuerkheimer, authors of the published responses will continue this conversation with Professor Diane Rosenfeld.
The abstract of the original article is as follows:
In recent years, survivors of sexual assault began disclosing identifying
details about their alleged assailants while sharing their stories online. The
practice has been termed “online shaming.” Some survivors have engaged
in online shaming in addition to reporting their cases to the police, while
others have employed it as an alternative to taking legal action. This Article
reveals, for the first time, how sexual assault survivors who participate in
online discourse on sexual assault perceive the practice of shaming their
alleged assailants online.
This Article relies on in-depth interviews with survivors who have shared
their stories on Facebook to uncover their justifications for and objections
to online shaming. According to survivors, online shaming serves to achieve
not only personal and feminist objectives, such as undermining gender and
social hierarchies and giving voice to survivors, but also classic criminal
justice-oriented goals, such as deterrence and incapacitation. Indeed, they
hold the belief that online shaming can outperform the criminal legal system
in achieving these goals. At the same time, survivors stressed that the online
channel has its perils if victims use it to attain informal justice.
This Article sheds light on the dynamics and tensions between two
“competing” platforms of justice—the mainstream, formal criminal legal
system and the online, informal one—and suggests essential lessons for the
criminal legal system. Survivors need both formal and informal channels to
be open and accessible to make an informed choice between them according
to their preferences, needs, and circumstances.
Click
here to read the full article. Click
here to read Professor Kathryn Abrams' response,
here to read Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer's response, and
here to read Professor
Dancig-Rosenberg's reply. 