Male Rape: An Empirical Examination of Correctional Officers' Attitudes Toward Rape in Prison
| Published date | 01 October 1989 |
| Author | Helen Eigenberg |
| Date | 01 October 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/003288558906900207 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
39
Male
Rape:
An
Empirical
Examination
of
Correctional
Officers’
Attitudes
Toward
Rape
in
Prison
Helen
Eigenberg*
Introduction
Male
rape,
the
act
of
men
raping
men,
appears
to
be
a
taboo
subject,
and
the
plight
of
male
rape
victims
in
prison
seems
to
have
been
virtually
ignored.
In
fact,
male
rape
in
prison
has
been
called
&dquo;the
most
closely
guarded
secret
of
American
prisons&dquo;
(Weiss
&
Friar,
1974,
p.
x).
This
claim
is
substantiated
by
the
paucity
of
empirical
data
on
male
rape.
No
studies
have
attempted
to
establish
the
frequency
of
male
rape
through
a
systematic
examination
of
official
records
(i.e.,
incident
reports
or
protective
records).
And
al-
though
a
few
studies
have
included
rapists
in
their
analyses
(Lockwood,
1980;
Moss,
Hosford,
and
Anderson,
1979;
Nacci
and
Kane,
1983, 1984a,
1984b),
these
samples
are
disturbingly
small
since
rapists
are
difficult
to
identify
and
study.
Therefore,
the
over-
whelming
majority
of
quantitative
research
on
male
rape
has
relied
upon
victimization
surveys
which
have
been
conducted
in
one
of
two
manners.
First,
researchers
have
attempted
to
survey or
interview
either
rape
victims
or
victims
of
coercive
behavior
(threats)
to
establish
how
often
rapes
occur.
These
studies
have
used
populations
of
victims
which
have been
formally
identified
by
prison
officials
(Lockwood,
1980;
Wooden
and
Parker,
1982)
and
generally
indicate
that
rape
occurs
more
frequently
than
do
studies
using
other
populations.
This
is
generally
attributed
to
sampling
bias
as
staff
identified
respondents
may
overrepresent
the
amount
of
victimization.
Second-
ly,
research
has
attempted
to
estimate
the
amount
of
rape
based
on
interviews
or
sur-
veys
based
on
random
samples
of
inmates
(Davis,
1968;
Lockwood,
1980;
Nacci
and
Kane,
1983, 1984a,
1984b).
These
studies
indicate
that
rape
occurs
much
less
frequently.
Both
types
of
studies,
moreover,
indicate
that
male
rape
in
prison
is
a
relatively
rare
phenomenon.
Empirically,
there
is
far
too
little
data
to
conclude
that
rape
is
a
rare
occurrence.
And
while
it is
conceivable
that
male
rape
in
prison
occurs
infrequently,
current
esti-
mates
must
be
evaluated
with
caution
for
two
reasons:
(1)
researchers
have
failed
to
acknowledge
the
degree
to
which
data
are
affected
by
reporting
patterns
of
stigmatized
victims
and
(2)
research
has
failed
to
clearly
distinguish
between
consensual
homo-
sexual
acts
and
acts
of
rape.
Literature
on
the
rape
of
women
in
the
community
has
demonstrated
that
atti-
tudes
which
stigmatize
the
victim
or
indicate
that the
victim
is
at
fault
for
the
rape
con-
tribute
to
underreporting
(Brownmiller,
1975;
Gager
and
Schurr,
1976;
Griffin,
1971;
Groth,
1979;
Kanin,
1967;
Katz
and
Mazur,
1979;
MacKinnon,
1987;
Robin,
1977;
Rus-
sell,
1975;
Schwendinger
and
Schwendinger,
1980;
and
White
and
Mosher,
1986).
It
is
certainly
difficult
to
think
of
a
group
that
is
more
stigmatized
than
male
rape
victims
in
prison.
Male
rape
victims
are
first
stigmatized
because
they
are
victims
in
a
society
which
is
reluctant
to
accept
the
random
nature
of
victimization
(Bard,
1985;
Elias,
1986;
Karmen,
1984;
Ryan,
1988;
Schneider,
1982;
Weis
and
Borges
1973).
In
addition,
male
rape
victims
are
also
stigmatized
because
of
the
homosexual
connotations
of
the
act
(Johnson,
1971;
Kleinber,
1980;
Kaufman,
1984;
Weiss
and
Friar,
1974).
And
per-
*Helen
Eigenberg
is
an
assistant
professor
of
sociology
at
Old
Dominion
University,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
and
completing
her
Ph.D.
in
criminal
justice
at
Sam
Houston
State
University,
Huntsville,
Texas.
40
haps
most
importantly,
inmates
who
report
rape
risk
the
stigmatization
(and
sanctions)
which
accompanies
informing.
Thus,
inmate
rape
victims
are
highly
stigmatized,
and
researchers
must
recognize
the
impact
this
stigmatization
may
have
on
self-report
data.
As
the
literature
review
will
demonstrate,
much
research
on
male
rape
in
prison
is
also
plagued
by
definitional
ambiguity.
Researchers
frequently
fail
to
define
coercive
acts
as
acts
of
rape.
Inmates
who
participate
in
homosexual
acts
after
threats
of
rape
are
bona
fide
rape
victims,
yet
these
acts
are
frequently
perceived
as
homosexual
acts
rather
than
acts
of
rape.
Thus,
it
is
possible
that
some
acts
of
homosexuality
are
actually
acts
of
rape,
but
that
current
estimates
fail
to
capture
the
full
extent
of
the
problem
because
of
definitional
confusion.
It
is
also
ironic
that
researchers
have
failed
to
discuss
underreporting
as
it
applies
to
rape,
although
they
have
noted
that
inmates
will
under-
report
involvement
in
homosexual
acts
because
of
the
stigma
associated
with
homo-
sexuality
(Nacci
and
Kane,
1984).
This
study
operates
on
the
domain
assumption
that
correctional
officers’
atti-
tudes
toward
victims
affect
inmate
reporting.
It
also
assumes
that
estimates
of
male
rape
will
be
unreliable
if
victims
are
stigmatized
because
they
will
be
unwilling
to
report
rape
to
either
correctional
officials
or
researchers.
Research
on
female
rape
vic-
tims
in
the
community
shows
that
police
response
has
had
a
tremendous
impact
on
reporting
(Elias,
1986;
Field,
1978;
Feldman-Summers
and
Palmer,
1980;
Griffin,
1979;
Holmstrom
and
Burgess,
1978;
Karmen,
1984;
Katz
and
Mazur,
1979;
Medea
and
Thompson,
1974;
Robin,
1977;
Russell,
1974;
Schwendinger
and
Schwendinger,
1983;
White
and
Mosher,
1986;
Weis and
Borges,
1973).
Police
officers
have
been
criticized
for
their
insensitivity
to
rape
victims
(Brownmiller,
1975;
Gager
and
Schurr,
1976;
Griffin,
1971;
Medea
and
Thompson,
1974;
Russell,
1975;
Schwendinger
and
Schwen-
dinger,
1980).
Training
for
police
officers
has
been
developed
and
implemented,
and
officers
appear
to
be
processing
rape
investigations
in
a
more
sensitive
manner
(Bur-
gess
and
Holmstrom,
1975;
Karmen,
1984).
At
the
same
time,
the
number
of
rapes
re-
ported
to
the
police
has
increased
42
percent
since
1977
(Federal
Bureau
of
Investiga-
tion,
1987:13-15).
And
while
increases
in
reporting
may
be
attributed
to
several
fac-
tors
(i.e.,
revised
legal
codes,
improved
community
support,
public
education
efforts),
police
responses
and
attitudes
of
police
officers
also
appear
to
be
responsible
for
in-
creases
in
reporting
(Ashworth
and
Feldman-Summers,
1978;
Dukes
and
Mattley,
1977;
Field,
1978;
Janoff-Bulman,
1979;
Merchant,
1979;
McDermott,
1979;
White
and
Mosher,
1986).
It
is
reasonable
to
assume,
then,
that correctional
officers,
like
police
officers,
affect
reporting
practices
of
inmate
victims.
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
examine
correctional
officers’
perceptions
about
the
frequency
of
rape
and
consensual
homosexuality,
and
to
evaluate
whether
correc-
tional
officers
believe
inmates
report
rape
to
officials.
This
study
also
explores
whether
correctional
officers
contribute
to
the
stigmatization
of
inmate
victims.
Review
of
the
Literature
An
exhaustive
search
of
the
literature
uncovered
only
four
quantitative
studies
on
male
rape
(Davis,
1968;
Lockwood,
1980;
Nacci
and
Kane,
1982, 1983, 1984a, 1984b;
Wooden
and
Parker,
1982).
All
of
these
studies
suggest
that
underreporting
occurs
and
that
it
is
difficult
to
distinguish
between
acts
of
consensual
homosexuality
and
acts
of
rape.
Furthermore,
all
of
these
studies
demonstrate
that
inmates
are
stigma-
tized.
And
while
information
on
correctional
officers
is
limited,
there
is
some
indica-
tion
that
officers
may
have
contributed
to
this
stigmatization.
Davis
(1968)
interviewed
561
custodial
employees
and
3,304
inmates
(from
1966
to
1968)
and
identified
97
victims
who
reported
having
being
victimized
by
at
least
176
aggressor.
These
victims
reported
that
156
sexual
assaults
had
occurred.
Of
these
To continue reading
Request your trial