The Adjudication Of Rape Since Reforms: Examining The Probability Of Conviction And Incarceration At The National And Three State Levels
| Author | Ronet Bachman,Pheny Smith |
| Published date | 01 December 1992 |
| Date | 01 December 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/088740349200600405 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
342
The
Adjudication
Of
Rape
Since
Reforms:
Examin-
ing
The
Probability
Of
Conviction
And
Incarcera-
tion
At
The
National
And
Three
State
Levels*
Ronet
Bachman
Pheny
Smith
Bureau
of
Justice
Statistics
Abstract
This
paper
examines
trends
in
the
criminal
justice
system’s
handling
of
rape
cases
since
the
implementation
of
reforms both
nationally
and
in
three
states:
California,
New
York
and
Pennsylvania.
While
previous
research
has
remained
equivocal
regarding
the
instrumental
effects
of
rape
law
reforms,
this
study
has
documented
the
usefulness
of
more
refined
methodologies
with
which
to
address
this
issue.
Included
in
these
reformulations
were
more
refined
dependent
measures
of
rape
(age
and
gender
specific);
the
inclusion
in
the
analysis
of
equivalent
trends
for
robbery
to
control
for
extraneous
factors
that
may
increase
these
adjudication
outcomes
for
all
violent
crimes;
and,
finally,
more
liberally
defined
time
periods
which
include data
from
the
late
eighties.
This
last
reformulation
is
particularly
important
since
original
statutes
in
most
states
have
undergone
extensive
interpretation
based
on
recent
appellate
court
decisions.
When
these
methodological
reformulations
were
made,
results
indicated
that
conviction
rates
for
rape
increased
over
and
above
increases
observed
for
robbery
in
all
three
states.
While
rates
of
in-
carceration
also
increased
in
all
states
for
rape,
only
in
Pennsylvania
and
at
the
national
level
did
these
increases
exceed
those
observed
for
robbery.
While
proponents
of
rape
law
reform
would
not
necessarily
characterize
the
picture
painted
by
these
findings
as
a
perfect
one,
this
research
demonstrates
the
importance
of
utilizing
more
refined
measures
and
methodologies
with
which
to
examine
trends
in
the
adjudication
of
rape
since
reforms.
*
Points
of
view
and
opinions
expressed
herein
are
those
of
the
authors
and
do
not
necessarily
represent
the
official
position
or
policies
of
the
U
S.
Department
of
Justice.
CJPR,
VOL.
6,
NO.
4/92,
at SAGE Publications on December 5, 2012cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
343
Introduction
&dquo;Rape
is
an
accusation
easy
to
be
made,
hard
to
be
proved,
and
hard
to
be
defended
by
the
party
accused
though
ever
so
innocent.&dquo;
The
above
quote
made
by
Sir
Matthew
Hale,
Lord
Chief
Justice
of
the
King’s
Bench,
is
perhaps
the
most
illuminating
characterization
of laws
regard-
ing
rape
in
the
formative
stages
of
our
country’s
criminal
justice
system.
This
concern
with
protecting
men
from
false
accusations
of
rape
has,
until
relatively
recently,
gone
beyond
the
&dquo;innocent
until
proven
guilty&dquo;
standard,
and
pervaded
laws
governing
the
adjudication
of
rape
cases.
Historically,
both
cultural
conceptions
of
rape
and
early
rape
laws
placed
serious
impedi-
ments
in
the
way
of
adjudicating
cases
of
rape
(Soshnick,
1987).
Beginning
in
the
mid
1970s,
efforts
by
various
organizations
including
feminist
groups
and
victim’s
rights
groups
led
to
growing
societal
awareness
that
the
offense
of
rape
had
a
unique
status
in
our
criminal
justice
system
and
that
extant
rape
laws
in
this
country
were
antiquated
at
best.
This
aware-
ness,
in
turn,
was
the
impetus
for
the
enactment
of
rape
law
reforms.
Michigan
was
the
first
state
to
modify
its
rape
statute
when
it
enacted
a
comprehensive
criminal
sexual
assault
law
in
1974.1
This
was
soon
followed
by
reform
of
other
state
statutes.
The
reform
of
state
rape
statutes
also
had
a
&dquo;spill
over&dquo;
effect
in
that
there
soon
occurred
a
procedural
reform
of
federal
law.
For
example,
in
1978
Congress
enacted
Rule
412
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence
which
excluded
from
evidence
all
reputation
and
opinion
testimony
concerning
a
rape
complainant’s
prior
sexual
conduct,
but
still
allowed
for
the
limited
admissibility
of
evidence
of
the
complainant’s
specific
prior
sexual
acts.3
3
The
nature
of
rape
law
reforms
have
varied
across
jurisdictions
both
in
comprehensiveness
and
in
specific
detail
(Berger,
Searles,
&
Neuman
1988;
Call,
Nice
&
Talarico
1991;
Field
&
Bienen
1980;
Galvin
1986;
Horney
&
Spohn
1991;
Soshnick
1987).
However,
Horney
and
Spohn
(1991:118-119)
note
four
common
reform
themes:
(1)
replacing
the
single
crime
code
of
rape
with
a
series
of
offenses
graded
by
seriousness
with
commensurate
penalties,
usually
gender
and
relationship
neutral,
(2)
changing
consent
stand-
ards
by
modifying
or
eliminating
requirements
that
victims
resist
their
at-
tackers,
(3)
eliminating
corroboration
requirements,
and
(4)
enacting
rape
shield
laws
that
place
restrictions
on
the
introduction
of evidence
concerning
the
victim’s
prior
sexual
conduct.
These
reforms
were
expected
to
change
the
cultural
consciousness
regard-
ing
rape
in
our
society
while
simultaneously
producing
instrumental
changes
in
the
adjudication
process
of
rape
cases.
Changes
in
public
conceptions
about
what
rape
&dquo;really
was&dquo;
and
who
was
&dquo;really
victimized&dquo;
by
rape
were
expected
to
lead
to
more
reports
of
rape.
Concurrent
with
this,
jurors
were
expected
to
become
more
sensitive
to
both
the
victimization
and
stigmatization
of
rape
victims.
As
a
result
of
the
increased
severity
attached
to
all
forms
of
sexual
assault
and
a
reduction
in
the
extent
to
which
rape
victims
were
blamed,
rape
reports,
arrests,
convictions
and
rates
of
imprisonment
were
at SAGE Publications on December 5, 2012cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial