On Wednesday, June 1, after nearly two days of deliberations, the seven-member jury delivered its verdict on the Depp-Heard trial: Amber Heard’s claims of being a victim of domestic violence in a Washington Post op-ed were “false,” and she had acted with “actual malice” toward her ex-husband when she wrote the article. For his defamation, Depp, who sued Heard for USD 50 million, was awarded USD 10 million in compensatory and USD 5 million (later reduced to USD 350,000 by Judge Penney Azcarate to meet Virginia’s statutory limit for punitive damage awards) in punitive damages. The jury also found Depp liable for defamatory statements made by one of his lawyers about Heard, for which she was granted USD 2 million in punitive damages—a far cry from the USD 100 million she demanded in her counter-suit.
Unsurprisingly, Heard and her legal team were not happy with the jurors’ unanimous decision. “The disappointment I feel today is beyond words,” Heard wrote in her statement released minutes after the verdict. She was “even more disappointed with what this verdict means for women,” calling it a setback.
“It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women should be taken seriously….I am sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seemed to have lost a right I thought I had as an American — to speak freely and openly,” she wrote.
What was surprising, however, was that many agreed with her. The New Yorker described the verdict as “chilling,” adding that “Many victims of domestic violence who watched this trial will likely conclude that, if they share their experiences, they will be disbelieved, shamed, and ostracized.” The New York Times called it “a travesty” and warned that “others will follow.” According to The Washington Post, the verdict was “a gag order for women.” The Guardian dubbed the six-week trial “an orgy of misogyny,” “an extension of Depp’s abuse of Heard, a way to prolong his humiliation and control over her.”
Over the next few days—and possibly weeks—I expect more articles of this sort to pop up, each expressing their fear about the implication of this verdict for female victims of domestic violence. But I believe this fear is unjustified and for good reasons.
For one thing, when two people—whatever sex or gender they may belong to—argue a completely opposing view of events that took place behind closed doors, one must put aside all presumptions they might have about either of the two individuals and evaluate all the facts and evidence presented before them thoroughly and carefully. These articles, however, start with the presumption that Heard, contrary to what the jury found in this trial, is a victim of domestic violence, and since she lost the trial, this is a loss for all other domestic violence survivors. This approach is rather similar to that taken by TikTokers; loyal supporters of Depp, these “content” creators were quick to monetize the trial by creating short videos free of context that only confirmed to their biases. But if we choose not to surrender to our biases and presumptions and evaluate the evidence presented in the case as objectively as possible, the genders of the winner and loser of the trial are of little importance—the truth cannot be sexist.
For another, the Depp-Heard trial is not representative of the majority of domestic violence cases. Contrary to what Heard’s statement and articles supporting her statement claim, the verdict did not rob her of the right to speak freely and openly. In 2018, when Heard wrote and published an op-ed in The Washington Post identifying herself as an alleged survivor of domestic violence, she exercised her right to speak out. During the trial, she again exercised her right to express herself through testimonies. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Heard has said she plans to appeal the ruling, proving yet again that she still has the right she claimed to have lost.
In contrast, the majority of domestic violence survivors, particularly those in developing countries, do not enjoy this freedom of expression. In Bangladesh, for example, the justice journey of the survivors of domestic violence, most of whom are women, is barricaded by various socioeconomic constraints. Studies show that majority of the incidents of domestic violence do not get reported; of the handful of incidents that do get reported, only a few appear in the court and even fewer reach a verdict. Instead, survivors must go through a number of informal channels, each of which prioritizes mediation over justice. Due to financial and mobility constraints and the complexity of the legal justice system, which only a few can navigate, survivors are then forced to live under the same roof with their perpetrators. Meanwhile, those who somehow manage to get a divorce face social stigmatization.
In other words, the televised and livestreamed case of Amber Heard, a multimillionaire celebrity, could not be more different than those of the general populace.
If there is one thing that we can learn from the Depp-Heard trial, it is that anyone—regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, or class—can be a victim of domestic violence. We, as a society, should come together to take allegations of domestic violence seriously and make sure that both the alleged victim and the offender get a fair, unbiased trial. The outcome of such a trial should not be viewed in light of the gender of the parties involved but as a conservation of human rights.
Mehid Hasan Munna is an editor at the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD), BRAC University.
