Justifying Sexual Violence and Blaming Victims: A Forensic Discourse Analysis of Suspect Narratives in Indonesian Rape Examination Reports
Abstract
This study examines how rape suspects construct discursive legitimacy for their actions through justification and victim-blaming strategies in Indonesian police examination reports (Berita Acara Pemeriksaan—BAP). Using a qualitative forensic linguistic approach, the study analyzes linguistic data derived from a rape suspect’s statements documented in an official BAP from Merauke Regency, Indonesia. The analysis is informed by van Leeuwen’s (2008) theory of legitimation, Ryan’s (1971) concept of victim blaming, and forensic discourse analysis to investigate how language is strategically employed to explain, justify, and normalize criminal behavior. Data were analyzed through identification, categorization, and interpretation of lexical choices, causal constructions, evaluative expressions, and agency representations. The findings reveal three dominant discursive strategies. First, emotional and biological justifications are employed to frame the offense as a consequence of jealousy, anger, and sexual desire rather than deliberate criminal intent. Second, victim-blaming strategies construct the victim’s sexual history and social interactions as factors contributing to the assault. Third, responsibility-shifting strategies minimize perpetrator accountability by foregrounding the victim’s behavior while backgrounding the suspect’s agency. The study contributes theoretically by extending legitimation theory to suspect narratives in Indonesian legal discourse, a largely underexplored area in forensic linguistics. It highlights the significance of language in shaping representations of perpetrators and victims within sexual violence investigations and legal processes.
References
Akbar, A., Anzar, A., Nurcholis, N., & Ilmiawan, I. (2023). Peristiwa tutur dugaan kekerasan seksual di perguruan tinggi: Tinjauan linguistik forensik. INDONESIA: Jurnal Pembelajaran Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 4(2), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.59562/indonesia.v4i2.45166
Apriyanto, S., Dalman, & Santoso, D. (2020). The urgency of forensic linguistics in police interrogation processes. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(6), 4766–4772.
Bhatia, V. K., Candlin, C. N., & Gotti, M. (Eds.). (2010). The discourses of dispute resolution. Peter Lang.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230.
Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O. J. Simpson trial. Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 761–773.
Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Fraser, H. (2020). Introducing the Research Hub for Language in Forensic Evidence. Judicial Officers' Bulletin, 32(11), 117–118.
Grubb, A., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 443–452.
Gunnarsson, B.-L. (2009). Professional discourse. Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Heffer, C. (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hörl, S., & MacLeod, N. (2026). The ultimate violation: A linguistic taxonomy for rape euphemisms in courtroom discourse. Discourse & Society, 37(1), 89–108.
Johnson, A., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Routledge.
Langen, H. (2022). The impact of the #MeToo movement on language at court: A text-based causal inference approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics.
Lityaningrum, A. (2022). A multimodal semiotic discourse analysis to reveal sexual harassment in social media direct messages. SASDAYA: Gadjah Mada Journal of Humanities, 6(2), 81–96.
Matoesian, G. M. (2001). Law and the language of identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. Oxford University Press.
Mikros, G. K. (2025). Large language models and forensic linguistics: Navigating opportunities and threats in the age of generative AI. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law.
Olsson, J., & Luchjenbroers, J. (2014). Forensic linguistics (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
Rock, F. (2001). The genesis of a witness statement. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. Pantheon Books.
Shuy, R. W. (2008). Fighting over words: Language and civil law cases. Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W. (2010). The language of murder cases. Oxford University Press.
Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford University Press.
Tayebi, T. (2022). New trends in forensic linguistics. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Van der Vegt, I., Mozes, M., Kleinberg, B., & Gill, P. (2020). The Grievance Dictionary: Understanding threatening language use. Behavior Research Methods, 52(4), 1537–1566.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.
Wodak, R. (2021). The politics of fear: The shameless normalization of far-right discourse (2nd ed.). Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage.
Woolard, K. A. (2021). Language ideology and social inequality in institutional discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 20(5), 673–689.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
