Fields of power in rape trial reform: Hegemony, habitus and heretics

Despite incremental reforms over the past fifty years, transformative
change of sexual assault proceedings has not occurred. This article
uses Bourdieu’s sociological concepts to explore why the legal
field remains resistant to substantial reform. It argues that doxa, or
deeply ingrained beliefs, underpin both resistance to change and a
tolerance of complainant harm, while habitus ensures the replication
of established practices. This resistance is evident in the notion of a
‘fair trial’, where the hegemony of defendant-centric doxa tends to
minimise complainant interests and embed the role of ‘rape myths’ in
the courtroom. Although reform advocates – Bourdieu’s ‘heretics’ –
have proposed solutions such as juryless trials, real change remains
elusive. This article examines recent proposals by the Australian Law
Reform Commission and draws lessons from Scotland’s failed attempt
at a juryless trial pilot. Ultimately, a Bourdieusian analysis suggests
that policymakers may be bound to a Sisyphean path, pursuing
incremental reform to address persistent issues.