The Tyson Rape Trial: the Law, Feminism and Emotional 'Truth'
| Author | Tony Jefferson |
| DOI | 10.1177/096466399700600206 |
| Date | 01 June 1997 |
| Published date | 01 June 1997 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
THE TYSON RAPE TRIAL: THE
LAW, FEMINISM AND
EMOTIONAL ’TRUTH’
TONY
JEFFERSON
University of Keele, UK
N
10 FEBRUARY
1992, Mike Tyson, the world’s most famous boxer
~
and potentially its richest ever sportsman, was convicted of one
charge of rape and two charges of criminal deviate conduct. He was
sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, with
four of these suspended. For a sensation-hungry press the trial was a godsend.
Like any superstar celebrity, Tyson was already fair game for the possible dis-
tortions of rumour, speculation and half-truths. His delinquent background
and ’bad’ reputation, both in and outside the ring (cf. Torres, 1989; Berger,
1990; Illingworth, 1992), made him a particularly apt vehicle for media myth-
making and projective fantasizing. Thus when the super-rich ex-delinquent,
’the incarnation of mainstream America’s nightmare’ (Boyer, 1992: 166) who -
was commonly dubbed ’the baddest man on the planet’ (Conlon, 1992a; Sen,
1992: 31), was put on trial for allegedly raping a beauty queen, the variations
on the ’rags-to-riches-and-back-again’ theme were perhaps only to be
expected, as well as the ’Beauty and the Beast’ type headlines (Benjamin, 1992:
19; Corliss, 1992; Mcllvanney, 1992a). But what of anyone interested in getting
behind the fantasies and the myths? What sense could he or she make of it all?
Is the ’truth’ of the legal discourse that pronounced Tyson guilty sufficient as
an
understanding of what happened on that February night? Or is there some-
thing about the complex dynamics underpinning the date that became a rape
-
a deeper, emotional truth - needing still to be unravelled?
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES ISSN 0964 6639 Copyright © 1997 SAGE Publications,
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, Vol. 6 (2), 281-301
281-
282
Rape is a particularly contentious issue, as evidenced by the many current
controversies surrounding it. Is date-rape really rape? Or rape within mar-
riage ? Is it about sex or violence? Should non-penile penetration be classed
as rape? Prior to the 1970s, rape was generally regarded as a comparatively
rare, sexual crime committed by a few, highly deviant men, largely against
women
they did not know. It was this traditional, common-sense discourse
-
the rapist as psychopathic stranger - that the writings of radical feminists,
such as Griffin (1971) and Brownmiller (1976), challenged. This radical
feminist discourse stressed the widespread nature of rape, highlighted the
extent of acquaintance rape, emphasized its motivation in terms of power and
control and placed it on a continuum with normal male sexuality.
More recently, this feminist orthodoxy, captured in the polemical slogan
’all men are potential rapists’, has itself been challenged in various ways.
Messerschmidt (1993), for example, criticizes the reductionist, essentialist
tendencies of radical feminism, and argued for an understanding of crime
(including rape) that sees it as a resource (one among many) for the ’situa-
tional accomplishment’ of masculinity. Its appeal (to men) is not universal,
but related to particular social situations (and the availability of ’masculinity-
accomplishing’ resources). Others, like Paglia (1992) and Roiphe (1993),
responding to the US debate on date-rape (Boumil et al., 1993) generated
partly by high-profile trials like those of Tyson and Kennedy Smith, have
come
to reject the (implicit) idea of woman-as-victim, especially as evidenced
in the influential radical feminist writings of Dworkin (1988) and Mackinnon
(1987). Here heterosexuality itself, not just rape, has been rendered oppres-
sive. This (some would say ’power’ or ’post’) feminist discourse on sexuality
is premised on a desire to reinstate woman-as-subject, hence possessed of
capacities for action, desire and responsibility.
The problem with all these discourses on rape, traditional, feminist or legal,
whatever their other merits, is that they assume too unitary and rational
a
subject (woman-as-victim/-as-agent, man-as-oppressor/-as-guilty) to
capture the emotional confusions, inconsistencies and contradictions that lie
behind human behaviour, especially where sexuality is somehow implicated.
My
purpose in what follows is to read the Tyson trial in a way which attempts
to do justice to these more difficult, emotional ’truths’ of the event. In so
doing, I hope not to replace the kind of structural accounts which regard rape
as a manifestation of male power but to focus on the neglected issue of the
meanings and practices through which such power gets reproduced at the
level of individual subjects.
THE TRIAL: CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS
,
I
~&dquo;.
What follows are the bare outlines of the protagonists’ conflicting accounts.1
The focus is on those details which were differently interpreted by oppos-
ing counsels, which are necessary to render my later interpretation access-
ible...
283
THE
PARTICIPANTS
According to the prosecuting counsel, Tyson was a loud-mouthed, sexually
predatory, ’crass’ young man (Conlon, 1992b), whose fame and fortune
meant he felt able to take sexually what he could not successfully woo. Ms
Washington, by contrast, was a wholesome, religious, small-town innocent
abroad who, flattered by Tyson’s interest in her and fooled by her own
naivete, was tricked into Tyson’s hotel bedroom by his single-minded,
uncaring, selfish ruthlessness (Indianapolis Star, 8 February: A7; Phillips,
1992a,b). Defence counsel did not dissent from the prosecution’s general
depiction of Tyson as a crass pursuer of women ’who expected women to
have sex with him whenever he asked’ (Phillips, 1992c), but insisted that Ms
Washington ’knew that and implicitly agreed to have sex with him’ (1992c).
Moreover, defence argued, being interested in Tyson’s power, wealth and
success, women willingly consented to the sexual deal on offer. Problems
only arose with the gold-diggers or with those who felt cheated by being
treated as one-night stands; which broadly described the defence view of the
complainant (1992d), the young black beauty queen, Desiree Washington.
WHAT HAPPENED
According to the prosecution, Tyson (a ’thug’, ’a wolf in sheep’s clothing’,
Phillips, 1992e) had only one thing on his mind - sexual gratification - when
invited by the Miss Black America organizer to meet the contestants. This
was going to happen ’irrespective of the standards of decency ... irrespective
of the law ... irrespective of anybody’s consent’ (1992f). The defence agreed
that Tyson had sex in mind when he met the contestants (1992b). The recep-
tion was ’excited’; there were ’kisses, hugs’; and Tyson made a series of crude
sexual advances (1992g; ’simply &dquo;Mike being Mike&dquo;’, according to his friend
Johnny Gill, Phillips, 1992h). Indeed, one such advance consisted of a date
invitation to Washington, which she readily accepted, giving Tyson her phone
number (1992i). Moreover, Tyson was explicit about the purpose of the date
(’I asked if she wanted to f~:~::. me’), and she said ’sure - give me a call’ (Hall,
1992a: 11; see also Taylor and Dickson, 1992: 9).
To counter the defence claim that Washington could not have been
unaware of Tyson’s sexual intentions after this reception, the prosecution
attempted to show that Tyson’s behaviour at the reception was more mixed.
As well as being, in the words of the owner of the Beauty Pageant, ’a serial
buttocks fondler’ (Gelarden, 1991), he also showed contestants a warm,
caring side, and behaved accordingly (Phillips, 1992g). Hence, Washington
did not read the date as an invitation to sex; and she denied that the invita-
tion had been couched in the sexually explicit terms claimed by the defence
(1992i). Plenty of witnesses were produced by both sides to demonstrate both
points: the crassly explicit nature of Tyson’s sexual advances (these included
contestants who turned him down); and his warmer, more sensitive side.
I
284
BETWEEN
THE
RECEPTION
AND
THE
DATE
To support their contention that Washington was not the innocent, impecca-
ble, church-going, hard-working, star-struck, student naif painted by the
prosecution, the defence produced a number of witnesses who had been with
Washington during the period between the reception and the date. These were
used to confirm their notion of Washington as a sophisticated, cynical little
gold-digger who was going to date Tyson simply because he was rich and
potentially manipulable (’you saw what Robin Givens [Tyson’s ex-wife] got
out of him’, one claimed she said, Bremner, 1992b: 13). Moreover, she was well
aware of Tyson’s sexual intentions (she was ’the most flirtatious’, the one who
’volunteered’ her phone number, according to ’other contestants’, 1992c)
THE
DATE
The prosecution case was that Tyson phones Washington at shortly after 1.30
am from his limousine, ’begging’ her to come and see the town. Though
reluctant at first, because of the lateness of the hour and being ill-prepared
for such a late-night jaunt, she is persuaded when Tyson says he must leave
town early the next morning. She then throws on some clothes, grabs a
camera and rushes down excitedly, expecting a round of parties and night-
clubs, and plenty of photos to prove it for the folks back home (Bremner,
1992d; Mcllvanney, 1992a).
Tyson greets her with a kiss, from which she recoils - ’his breath kind of
smelled’ (Tisdall, 1992). He then makes an excuse about having to return to
his hotel, where he invites her to wait, first in his living-room, then in his
bedroom. After some small talk, he suddenly...
To continue reading
Request your trial