Another high-profile Australian man has been accused of domestic violence after reality TV star and influencer Sam Wood was arrested for domestic violence on Saturday.

Wood, The Bachelor star turned fitness mogul, was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm and strangulation in a domestic setting, which he denies,

Nonetheless, he was refused bail in a court appearance in Queensland on Thursday afternoon.

Inevitably, many people have expressed shock and disbelief online. The serious charges don’t align with the public’s perception of the alleged perpetrator as a “good guy”.

Importantly, Wood hasn’t been convicted of any wrongdoing, and his case has a way to go through the courts. However the discussion prompted by his arrest reveals a lot about our perceptions of who might be capable of violence and why.

The idea that “good guys” are less likely to commit offences involving sexual or domestic violence is a myth. Such stereotypes serve to deny, downplay or justify violence against women.

Research shows these myths continue to influence criminal trials.

One such myth, often referred to as the “monster myth”, is the idea that perpetrators of sexual or domestic violence are different from “normal” men because they are violent, deviant or monstrous.

When an alleged perpetrator does not match this stereotypical description of a monster, people are less likely to believe the allegations against them.

These misconceptions can distort how we perceive a person accused of sexual and domestic violence offences, including in the courts.

Good character evidence

As my forthcoming research, which has been accepted for publication in the Monash University Law Review, shows, these myths and misconceptions can be leveraged in criminal trials through the introduction of good character evidence.

Good character evidence may include evidence by another person, which operates like a character reference, describing the accused perpetrator’s reputation or good qualities. Such evidence is usually given by employers, friends or family members, among others.

While steps have been made in some states to limit the use of good character evidence in sentencing for sexual offences, it is permitted during the criminal trial for two reasons.

The first is to support the alleged perpetrator’s credibility. And secondly, because the person on trial has pleaded not guilty, good character testimony is used as evidence that they are unlikely to have committed the crime charged.

While good character evidence can be raised in all criminal trials, it’s specifically problematic in domestic violence and rape trials, when alleged perpetrators benefit from the above myths and misconceptions about sexual and domestic violence.

Trading on the ‘monster myth’

The monster myth has been discredited.

Research shows there are no common characteristics of psychopathy or monstrousness among men accused of rape.

Rather, the defining characteristics of perpetrators are that they are men, they have hostile attitudes towards women, greater acceptance of traditional gender roles, and hold beliefs that justify male violence against women.

Character evidence is not objective. A person’s reputation may look very different depending on who is asked to vouch for it. There is no fixed way to decide whether someone has a good reputation, as people’s views are shaped by the social, cultural and moral values of their community.

This is important, as a significant minority of Australians hold views that minimise violence against women, and growing numbers of young men have hostile attitudes towards women.

Behind closed doors

Evidence from a friend or colleague that an alleged perpetrator is trustworthy or respected may help explain their character in some contexts. But it’s unlikely to explain it in all contexts.

This evidence importantly doesn’t say anything about the alleged perpetrator’s views of gender roles or women. It also doesn’t speak to how an alleged perpetrator may treat people they believe they have physical and/or social power over.

Good character evidence from people who know the accused outside their intimate relationships assumes a person’s public behaviour will be the same as their private behaviour.

However, alleged perpetrators are unlikely to direct their behaviour to anyone but the victim. Perpetrators often create distinct public and private characters to manipulate those around them.

By presenting themselves in public as decent and respectable, alleged perpetrators can fly under the radar for years.

When a victim makes an allegation of violence against someone, the accused can use evidence of their good public character to create an environment of mistrust around the allegations. This can help them escape conviction, both in the eyes of the court and the public.

The admission of good character evidence can therefore harm victims.

Victims are not permitted to use good character evidence, yet the criminal trial (and the public’s perception of victims) most often hinges on their credibility.

Hearing myths and misconceptions in court can make it difficult for victims to be believed and can erode confidence in the criminal justice system.

Who we think of as violent

The charges against Wood remain subject to legal processes. But the case raises questions about our perceptions of alleged perpetrators and who we view as capable of committing violence against women and why.

While the limiting of good character evidence in sentencing is a positive step, more can be done to challenge the myth that violence against women is committed by a certain type of person and not by ordinary, normal and sometimes famous men.

For these reasons, my forthcoming research suggests good character evidence should not be admissible in criminal trials for domestic violence and sexual offences.

1800 RESPECT 1800 737 732

Lifeline 131 114

Jessica Schaffer is a Lecturer in Law at Southern Cross University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.