The cost of being a legal patient: Judicial use of rape defendants' and victims’ psychiatric records in South Korea

Abstract

Mental health evidence in courts can either support or undermine the trustworthiness and accuracy of each party's claims. When defendants and victims of sex crimes against women present their medical evidence, how are their claims impacted differently? This paper examines the court's interpretation of defendants' and victims' psychiatric records in 821 South Korean court cases involving rape (2013–2023). The findings show that a defendant's credibility is discussed as a potential mitigating factor in determining their responsibility and treatability. In contrast, a victim's credibility is debated at the risk of dismissing the entire case, determining the occurrence of the crime and new harm. This structural imbalance is exacerbated when rape trials turn into false accusation trials, in which rape victims must use their psychiatric evidence to invalidate their own rape allegations. The paper highlights the asymmetrical cost of being a patient to speak up in court and discusses the consequences of diagnosis with the term legal patient.