Harvey Weinstein’s convictions for rape and sexual assault must have a lasting impact – Martyn McLaughlin

The guilty verdict in former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s rape and sexual assault trial should signal a change in legislation and attitudes that improves the current low rates of conviction, writes Martyn McLaughlin.

Harvey Weinstein’s case serves to highlight the low conviction rates for rape (Picture: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The conviction of Harvey Weinstein is being presented as a victory, and it is, of course – especially for those survivors of his sexual violence who came forward and exposed private traumas in the name of public service and seeing justice done.

It is, however, a qualified one. It is inconceivable to know how ­Anabella Sciorra, for example, must be feeling. The actor gave a harrowing account at the 67-year-old’s trial, accusing him of raping her in the mid-1990s.

In the end, he was acquitted on the two counts of predatory sexual assault that hinged on her evidence, despite the fact he was led out of court as a convicted rapist.

The guilty verdicts on charges of third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act doubtless proved a source of comfort and reassurance for the many other women who spoke out, even though their allegations heralded no ­charges, and were used instead by the prosecution to present a pattern of abusive behaviour.

The verdicts recognised that a court of law concurs with the court of public opinion in that no man’s wealth or power can guarantee impunity.

Only last month, James Burke, the judge presiding over Weinstein’s ­trial, instructed potential jurors that it was “not a referendum” on #MeToo, but in truth, the two were inseparable.

‘The sky is blue again’

For all the progress achieved by the movement in recent years, the prospect of Weinstein walking free posed a grave risk to its ­momentum. As the jury deliberated in the days leading up to the verdict, the chances of his acquittal seemed all too real.

It was a scenario many had not prepared for, and, had it come to pass, its impact would have been devastating. The relief which ­greeted Weinstein’s conviction was palpable. The actor, Caitlin Dulany, perhaps put it best when she said it was “like the sky is blue again”.

“I have a renewed sense of faith that women will be believed when they come forward,” she reflected. “We were really hoping to change the world with this, and today is a good indication that we are on that road.”

Yet, Weinstein’s conviction – a watershed moment though it is – should not be seized upon as proof that that journey is close to a conclusion. In reality, it has barely begun.

Any sense of triumph at the guilty verdict on two charges is tempered by the knowledge that more than 90 women had to come forward to speak out.

There are echoes of Bill Cosby, the veteran comedian and actor, who was imprisoned in ­September 2018 after being found guilty of three counts of sexual assault. More than 60 women identified as Cosby’s ­victims.

Vilified as if they were on trial

What does that say about the ­voices of women in the criminal ­justice system, and why it requires a chorus before they might be heard? In that respect, the Weinstein and Cosby cases must be ­recognised as outliers – reminders of the ­excruciating difficulty of successfully prosecuting men for rape or sexual assault offences.

It should not be forgotten that the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr, initially declined to ­prosecute Weinstein when a model claimed he’d groped her in 2015. Only when other women came ­forward did he take their ­allegations to trial.

Those women proved brave enough to make public allegations in the knowledge they would be subjected to aggressive and intrusive attacks. They were doubted, shamed, and vilified, as if they – and not Weinstein – were on trial.

At one point, proceedings had to be brought to a halt after one of the witnesses was left crying uncontrollably, having apparently suffered a panic attack after more than four hours of cross-examination by a defence lawyer.

The resulting verdict may soothe that pain, but it will not change the stark reality that the vast ­majority of rapes are never reported, and an overwhelming majority of those that are fail to make it to court.

Will Weinstein case set a precedent?

Here in Scotland, the ­conviction rate for rape and attempted rape stands at 5.2 per cent of the number reported or 39 per cent of prosecuted cases, the lowest level in eight years.

A definitive statistical snapshot of the US picture is ­harder to come by, but according to an analysis of justice department ­figures by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, just 5.7 per cent of rape incidents end in arrest, with a mere 0.7 per cent resulting in a felony conviction.

Such harrowing numbers should signal the greatest success of the Weinstein case – his conviction of rape in the third degree.

Yes, he was acquitted of three charges, including the two most serious counts of predatory sexual assault, and an alternative count of rape in the first degree, but after five days, the jury at the New York supreme court delivered that ­rarest of things – accountability for a ­rapist’s crimes, with a custodial ­sentence to follow. By any measure, the fact Weinstein stood trial in the first place was an aberration. The guilty verdicts merely highlighted it.

Is it, then, a victory? The question cannot be answered yet. Not fully, at least. It depends on whether the anomaly it represents can become a precedent, signifying a lasting change in terms of the legislation and culture surrounding sexual violence, or whether it comes to be viewed as a blip in the absurd, depressing status quo.

The seven men and five women who convicted Weinstein have had their say, but the jury remains very much out.