Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town

Although Huguet does ultimately secure justice through the legal system, that system also reinforces the emotional burdens survivors carry, suggesting a disconnect between the law and the lived experiences of survivors and hinting at The Role of Institutions in Perpetuating or Combating Rape Culture. In some cases, Huguet’s experience implies, the same institution can be both healing and retraumatizing.

One of the most notable moments in these chapters occurs when Judge Karen Townsend states, “I think what has happened here is that a young woman’s trust has been violently taken away from her, and in a way that has caused substantial damage to her” (244). This statement reflects the emotional devastation that often goes unaddressed in the legal system and represents one judge’s attempt to rectify that. Krakauer’s choice to include such heartfelt judicial commentary alongside more procedural elements emphasizes the profound personal impact of the crime. Judge Townsend’s words are particularly significant in how they convey not only the crime’s violation of trust but also the far-reaching consequences for the survivor’s emotional and psychological well-being. By highlighting these effects, Krakauer draws attention to The Dynamics of Sexual Assault Cases in the Legal System, emphasizing that the formal legal process often falls short of addressing the full scope of harm such crimes cause. The inclusion of this moment invites readers to consider how legal outcomes—no matter how severe—may not fully heal the emotional wounds left by sexual violence. That Townsend herself, though sympathetic to Huguet, can do little beyond acknowledging the problem highlights its systemic nature.

Krakauer’s structural choices in these chapters also reinforce this tension between legal procedures and emotional realities. The juxtaposition of Huguet’s and her father’s personal testimonies with the clinical, detached language of the psychologists evaluating Donaldson highlights the coldness of the legal process. For example, Dr. Robert Page’s statement, “At this point [...] I believe he’s got some remorse. I just can’t put my finger on exactly whether or not that’s absolutely genuine, in terms of the effect of his actions on the victim [...]” (237), illustrates the limitations of clinical assessments in capturing the true depth of a perpetrator’s accountability. The sterile language contrasts sharply with the emotional gravity of the crime, creating a sense of dissonance, and suggesting a critique of how the legal system prioritizes factual, measurable assessments over the emotional and psychological needs of the survivor. This dissonance points to Victim Advocacy and the Challenges Faced by Survivors, as survivors must navigate a system that can feel emotionally detached or even indifferent to their suffering.

In addition to exploring the emotional toll on survivors, Krakauer critiques the institutional frameworks that allow perpetrators to evade full accountability. Both Dr. Page and Dr. Myers, the psychologists tasked with evaluating Donaldson, conclude that he is a “low risk” to reoffend and recommend outpatient treatment over incarceration. Krakauer uses these evaluations to highlight the inconsistencies in the system’s treatment of sexual offenders. Donaldson’s dishonesty during these evaluations—where he downplays the severity of his actions—further complicates the question of accountability. Krakauer presents these moments as evidence of the broader institutional failures to adequately address and punish sexual violence. By doing so, he illustrates how the legal system often prioritizes the rehabilitation of the perpetrator over the emotional needs of the survivor. The evaluations and legal strategies discussed in these chapters reveal a system that too often minimizes the impact of sexual violence and fails to provide meaningful justice.

One of the most telling moments in this regard comes during prosecutor Fred Van Valkenburg’s questioning of Dr. Page, where Van Valkenburg asserts, “Retribution [...] primarily involves the punishment of the perpetrator, in the sense that if the victim feels that there has been some retribution or punishment, it’s easier for her to heal” (238). Van Valkenburg’s argument underscores the necessity of punishment not just as a form of justice but as a crucial step in the survivor’s healing process. In Krakauer’s portrayal, Van Valkenburg serves as a voice for survivors, advocating for a legal system that recognizes the psychological importance of retribution.