How the Justice System Fails Male Survivors: The Menendez Brothers’ Case

By Rose Raaj-Shakha

Men who speak out about sexual abuse are often met with disbelief, ridicule, or outright dismissal—especially in the courtroom. The Menendez Brothers’ case is a chilling example of how the justice system punishes male survivors instead of protecting them.

Many men who report sexual assault are belittled or even accused of lying due to the archetypal masculine image of physical and emotional toughness that society imposes. This societal construct instills fear in men, discouraging them from speaking out about their experiences for fear of scrutiny from family, friends, or colleagues, which only exacerbates their vulnerability.

Men who do come forward often face slander in the media and unfair treatment in court. A striking example of this injustice is the 1990s Menendez Brothers case: two brothers brutally shot their parents out of self-defense after enduring years of sexual abuse. Despite their claims, the trial resulted in an unjust outcome, sentencing both to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The infamy of this seven-year-long case arises from the unfair judgement towards the brothers on the basis of background and gender; their parents’ wealth caused Lyle and Erik’s stories to be scandalised as premeditated murder with the motive of inheriting 14.5 million USD, despite the fact that they only inherited 2 million dollars each after loans and taxes.

In truth, this violent outburst was prompted not only by self-defense but also by years of repressed rage toward their parents’ mistreatment and exploitation of them. This resulted in immense mental scarring: the Menendez brothers displayed clear signs of PTSD throughout their trial, reinforcing the negative impacts of their abusive treatment. Lyle recounts how he kept an extensive stuffed animal collection, which he said “got me through the day.” This shows how mundane aspects of childhood played a crucial role for him, providing him with a sense of safety and security that his parents failed to give him.

Regardless of the wealth of evidence against the allegation that the Menendez brothers murdered their parents for monetary benefit, their harsh sentence serves as a testament to the unjust and prejudiced interpretation of their testimonies. By contrast, cases that involve female survivors of parental abuse tend to result in less severe sentences. For example, the premeditated and arranged murder of Clauddine Blanchard by her daughter Gypsy Rose Blanchard due to escape from her situation as a victim of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy, resulting in Gypsy being sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Such disparity in the severity of the sentences issued reveals the disturbing reality of how sex discrimination permeates judicial systems. Although we should consider that Gypsy did not directly murder her mother, her complicity in the crime cannot be understated, as the principle of the act remains the same to the Menendez brothers.

Using these examples, we should systematically dismantle the standards of toxic masculinity that have been embedded into legal institutions, giving equal consideration to all victims of abuse, regardless of gender.