Sexual assault laws have been amended on several occasions to make the criminal justice system more sensitive to the tribulations of the prosecutrix. However, the manner in which these reforms are implemented in the courtroom and the kind of language that is used by the advocates and judges are instrumental in achieving its objective. In this paper, the reforms mandating in camera trials for rape cases, and excluding past sexual history from evidence have been examined. It is argued that the language used inside the courtroom may serve to defeat the purpose of these reform measures. This argument is based in the premise that language is not merely a means of putting forth evidence in a case, but it in fact transforms the nature of evidence itself, thus influencing the outcome of the case.

Publication Date