Rape by any other name… Comparing sexual assault cases labeled “suspicious circumstances” to those labeled sex crimes

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Criminal Justice Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102324
Jessica Duncan , Emma C. Lathan , Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling , James Tres Stefurak
{"title":"Rape by any other name… Comparing sexual assault cases labeled “suspicious circumstances” to those labeled sex crimes","authors":"Jessica Duncan ,&nbsp;Emma C. Lathan ,&nbsp;Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling ,&nbsp;James Tres Stefurak","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In sexual assault cases, the presence of victim- and case-level factors that align with rape myth beliefs are thought to influence law enforcement perceptions of victim credibility, which in turn, can predict case progression. This study examined the case narratives and investigative outcomes of 200 randomly sampled cases attached to unsubmitted sexual assault kits (SAKs) to compare the frequency of factors found to negatively influence officers' perceptions of victim credibility in cases originally labeled “suspicious circumstances” versus sex crimes. SAKs were submitted for forensic testing, and outcomes were compared between groups. Compared to cases labeled sex crimes, “suspicious circumstances” case narratives were 1.5 times more likely to contain statements indicative of a negative view of the victim's credibility (Exp(B) = 1.490; 95 %CI = 1.267–1.752; <em>p</em> = .000) (i.e., the victim engaged in risky behavior, provided inconsistent statements, was unable to provide details in their report of the crime, and had a criminal record, a history of promiscuity, or low intellectual ability). Yet, case label was not predictive of receiving a forensic DNA match (Exp(B) = 1.017; 95 %CI = 0.753–1.374; <em>p</em> = .91). Findings support policy and procedure changes, including routinely testing all SAKs and eliminating the “suspicious circumstances” label, to prevent victim credibility biases from influencing sexual assault case decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Justice","volume":"96 ","pages":"Article 102324"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235224001739","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In sexual assault cases, the presence of victim- and case-level factors that align with rape myth beliefs are thought to influence law enforcement perceptions of victim credibility, which in turn, can predict case progression. This study examined the case narratives and investigative outcomes of 200 randomly sampled cases attached to unsubmitted sexual assault kits (SAKs) to compare the frequency of factors found to negatively influence officers' perceptions of victim credibility in cases originally labeled “suspicious circumstances” versus sex crimes. SAKs were submitted for forensic testing, and outcomes were compared between groups. Compared to cases labeled sex crimes, “suspicious circumstances” case narratives were 1.5 times more likely to contain statements indicative of a negative view of the victim's credibility (Exp(B) = 1.490; 95 %CI = 1.267–1.752; p = .000) (i.e., the victim engaged in risky behavior, provided inconsistent statements, was unable to provide details in their report of the crime, and had a criminal record, a history of promiscuity, or low intellectual ability). Yet, case label was not predictive of receiving a forensic DNA match (Exp(B) = 1.017; 95 %CI = 0.753–1.374; p = .91). Findings support policy and procedure changes, including routinely testing all SAKs and eliminating the “suspicious circumstances” label, to prevent victim credibility biases from influencing sexual assault case decisions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Criminal Justice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Criminal Justice is an international journal intended to fill the present need for the dissemination of new information, ideas and methods, to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area. The Journal is concerned with all aspects of the criminal justice system in terms of their relationships to each other. Although materials are presented relating to crime and the individual elements of the criminal justice system, the emphasis of the Journal is to tie together the functioning of these elements and to illustrate the effects of their interactions. Articles that reflect the application of new disciplines or analytical methodologies to the problems of criminal justice are of special interest. Since the purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, new information, and the application of new methods to the problems and functions of the criminal justice system, the Journal emphasizes innovation and creative thought of the highest quality.
期刊最新文献
Back to school days: Crime seasonality in a campus-dominated community Day and night: Evaluating the impact of CCTV and street lighting on urban crime prevention in Detroit Promoting disengagement: Effects of a gang intervention and exiting Program on negative police contacts Sexual misconduct victimization and reporting decisions among gender and sexual minorities college students The temporal ordering of offending and victimisation in early adulthood among people who use substances in Chile: A multichannel sequence analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1