Detectives’ Descriptions of Their Responses to Sexual Assault Cases and Victims: Assessing the Overlap Between Rape Myths and Focal Concerns

Increasing just responses to sexual assault requires understanding how police perceive sexual assault cases and victims, and which legal (e.g., evidence), extralegal (e.g., suspect characteristics), and practical (e.g., convictability) concerns influence their responses in these cases. Using interview data collected in the Los Angeles Sexual Assault Study, we qualitatively analyzed 611 comments made by 52 detectives in response to questions about case processing decisions (e.g., what it takes to arrest) to examine the factors detectives described as relevant to their assessments of allegations as legitimate, victims as credible, and cases as chargeable. Results revealed overlap between rape myths and legal, extralegal, and practical concerns. Specifically, comments referenced rape myths in relation to suspect blameworthiness and dangerousness, evidence, victim cooperation, and prosecutors’ decisions. Comments also revealed some detectives lacked knowledge of relevant legal statutes and case processing guidelines (e.g., unfound criteria). These results suggest that sexual assault case attrition stems from an orientation to prosecutors’ charging criteria rather than probable cause, and organizational factors, such as deprioritization of sex crimes investigations. We recommend that departments adequately staff and equip sex crimes units with investigatory resources and prioritize sex crimes investigations over non-violent crimes. Departments should incentivize sex crimes assignments and screen applicants for quality, experience, and bias. Detectives in these units should undergo regular trainings on unfounding and probable cause criteria and should be required to make arrests when they have probable cause to do so.

A Study on Characteristics Analysis and Countermeasures of Digital Sex Crimes in Korea

In the modern knowledge–information age, various information and communication technologies provide us with many benefits and at the same time, bring various side effects such as cybercrime. The number of cybercrimes is increasing gradually, and in particular, the number of digital sex crimes has been increasing recently. In addition, digital sex crimes are becoming increasingly violent, so national measures are needed. In this study, statistical data at the national level were used to investigate the overall characteristics of digital sex crimes in Korea. First, statistical analysis shows that the victims are mainly women in their teens and 20s. Typical types of digital sex crimes are distribution of illegal contents and illegal filming, the perpetrators are mainly unknown, and digital sex crimes were less often recognized by others and more often by the victims themselves. Based on these results, countermeasures against various digital sex crimes are suggested.

The Influence of Moral Intuitions on Americans’ Divergent Reactions to Reports of Sexual Assault and Harassment

Drawing on insights from moral psychology, we examine the influence of moral intuitions on Americans’ divergent reactions to reports of sexual assault and harassment. We hypothesize that Americans whose moral intuitions emphasize care and protection of the vulnerable will show a greater willingness to believe reports of sexual assault and harassment, while those whose moral intuitions emphasize social order and cohesion will show greater skepticism toward such reports. Using data from a nationally representative sample of USA adults ( N =1050), we find strong support for both hypotheses. We also find that the influence of moral intuitions on reactions to reports of sexual assault and harassment is partially mediated by respondents’ willingness to attribute responsibility to victims of sex crimes. Our results hold when females and males are examined separately. The study provides compelling evidence that a moral intuitionist approach is useful for understanding Americans’ divergent reactions to reports of sexual assault and harassment.

Beyond Belief: How the "Corroboration Rule" in Malawi Obstructs Justice for Victims of Sex Crimes and Discriminates Against Women and Girls on the Basis of Sex—A Call for Legislative Change

Sexual abuse against women and girls in Malawi is pervasive, and survivors face significant barriers in their quest for justice. One particular barrier—the “corroboration rule”—stands out as a discriminatory and onerous roadblock for women and girls who seek justice as victims of sex crimes. The corroboration rule is a common law rule of evidence and criminal procedure that requires prosecutors trying sex offence cases to have independent evidence in addition to a victim’s testimony, even if that testimony is credible and shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the sex crime. This heightened evidentiary standard for victims of sex crimes is based on the stereotype that women and girls are apt to lie about being raped and that their word alone—no matter how clear, convincing, or credible—should not be enough to put a rapist behind bars. Because of the rule, too many women and girls in Malawi are not treated equally in the criminal justice system, and rarely are those who sexually abuse them brought to justice in court. This fosters a climate of impunity for rapists and sexual abusers. While many countries around the world used to require the corroboration rule in sexual offences, in the modern era, Malawi stands apart from the rest of the world as one of the few countries that still requires its use as a matter of common law. However, with a constitution that guarantees equality for women and girls and equal access to justice under the law, and as a State Party to treaties that guarantee the same, Malawi’s Parliament should abolish the corroboration rule.