Article contents
Accounting for the “Second Assault”: Legal Organizations’ Framing of Rape Victims
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 December 2018
Abstract
What organizational and community conditions influence legal officials to treat rape victims “unresponsively”? Our analysis is guided by Goffman's theory of organizational frameworks and frames of activity and March and Olsen's institutional theory of organizations. Using data from 130 organizations in Florida that process rape cases, we compare six types of organizations (including hospital emergency rooms and rape crisis centers) on eight criteria and review their frameworks and frames of activity relative to unresponsiveness. We use the issue of victim legitimacy to illustrate the utility of our model. Our results show that well-meaning staff in legal organizations are oriented to routinely treat victims unresponsively. Their organizations routinely orient them to be concerned with, for example, public approval, the avoidance of losing, and expediency more than with victims' needs. In our conclusion, we identify ways legal officials and rape crisis centers can promote responsive treatment of victims. We also call for research on legal organizations that are responsive to victims and for a nationwide discourse on the “politics of rape victims' needs” as a means of addressing the gender inequality issues that underlie rape crimes and laws and orient legal officials to treat victims unresponsively.
- Type
- Symposium: Women, Law, and Violence
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1994
References
1 Jurors in the case wished the victim had been more emotional and visibly upset, like a young woman from Georgia who testified and was formerly raped by the same man. As a result of the jurors' statements, the Florida legislature passed a law in 1990 forbidding the use of a victim's dress or clothing in deciding on rape cases.Google Scholar
2 Joyce E. Williams & Karen A. Holmes, The Second Assault (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981) (“Williams & Holmes, Second Assault”); Cassie C. Spencer, “Sexual Assault: The Second Victimization,” in Laura L. Crites & Winifred L. Hepperle, eds., Women, the Courts, and Equality (Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1987) (“Crites & Hepperle, Women”); Lee Madigan & Nancy C. Gamble, The Second Rape (New York: Lexington Books, 1991).Google Scholar
3 Gerald D. Robin, “Forcible Rape: Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System,” 23 Crime & Delinq. 136 (1977); Lynda Lytle Holmstrom & Ann Wolbert Burgess, The Victim of Rape: Institutional Reactions (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978) (“Holmstrom & Burgess, Victim of Rape”); Mary P. Koss & Mary R. Harvey, The Rape Victim: Clinical and Community Interventions (2d ed. Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1991) (“Koss & Harvey, Rape Victim”); Helen Benedict, Virgin or Vamp: Houi the Press Covers Sex Crimes (New York: Random House, 1992).Google Scholar
4 Patricia A. Cluss, Janice Boughton, Ellen Frank, Barbara Duffy Steward, & Deborah West, “The Rape Victim: Psychological Correlates of Participation in the Legal Process,” 10 Crim. Just. & Behav. 342 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Cf. Esther Sales, Martha Baum, & Barbara Shore, “Victim Readjustment Following Assault,” 37 J. Soc. Issues. 5 (1984); Lynn S. Chancer, “New Bedford, Massachusetts, March 6, 1983-March 22, 1984: The Before and After of a Group Rape,” 1 Gender & Soc'y 239 (1987); Susan Estrich, Real Rape: Houi the Legal System Victimizes Women Who Say No (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
6 E.g., Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975); Vicki McNickle Rose, “Rape as a Social Problem: A Byproduct of the Feminist Movement,” 25 Soc. Prob. 75 (1977).Google Scholar
7 Martha Burt, “Rape Myths and Acquaintance Rape,” and Karen S. Calhoun & Ruth M. Townsley, “Attributions of Responsibility for Acquaintance Rape,” both in Andrea Parrot & Laurie Bechhofer, eds., Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime (New York: Wiley-Inter-science, 1991).Google Scholar
8 Diana E. H. Russell, Sexual Exploitation: Rape, Child Sexual Abuse and Workplace Harassment (Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1984) (“Russell, Sexual Exploitation”); Elizabeth Stanko, Intimate Intrusions: Women's Experience of Male Violence (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1988) (“Pateman, Sexual Contract”); Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989) (“MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory”). Google Scholar
9 Valerie P. Hans & William S. Lofquist, “Jurors' Judgments of Business Liability in Tort Cases: Implications for the Litigation Explosion Debate,” 26 Law & Soc'y Rev. 85 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 We use the pronoun she to represent rape victims. While we know that many boys and men are raped, the overwhelming majority of adult rape cases that are processed at the community level are women. We feel it is empirically and ethically correct to acknowledge women's high rate of experience of sexual violence by referring to rape victims as women (for a similar argument, see Gail Abarbanel & Aileen Adams, Sexual Assault on Campus: What Colleges Can Do (Santa Monica CA: Santa Monica Rape Treatment Center, 1988)).Google Scholar
11 Gary D. LaFree, “Variables Affecting Guilty Pleas and Convictions in Rape Cases: Toward a Social Theory of Rape Processing,” 58 Soc. Forces 833 (1980); id., “Official Reactions to Social Problems: Police Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases,” 28 Soc. Prob. 582 (1981); Wayne A. Kerstetter, “Gateway to Justice: Police and Prosecutorial Response to Sexual Assaults against Women,” 81 Criminology 267 (1990); Lisa Frohmann, “Discrediting Victims' Allegations of Sexual Assault: Prosecutorial Accounts of Case Rejections,” 38 Soc. Prob. 213 (1991).Google Scholar
12 Lisa Brodyaga, Margaret Gates, Susan Singer, Marna Tucker, & Richardson White, Rape and Its Victims: A Report for Citizens, Health Facilities, and Criminal Justice Agencies (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1975) (“Brodyaga et al., Rape and Its Victims”); Elizabethann O'sullivan, “What Has Happened to Rape Crisis Centers? A Look at Their Structures, Members, and Funding,” 3 Victimobgy 45 (1978); Mary Harvey, Exemplary Rape Crisis Programs: A Cross-Site Analysis and Case Studies (Washington, D.C.: National Center for the Prevention & Control of Rape, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, 1985) (“Harvey, Exemplary Rape Crisis Programs”). Google Scholar
13 Susan Caringella-MacDonald, “The Comparability of Sexual and Nonsexual Assault Case Treatment: Did Statute Change Meet the Objective?” 31 Crime & Delinquency 206 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Karen A. Holmes, “Justice for Whom? Rape Victims Assess the Legal-Justice System,” 8 Free Inquiry in Creative Soc. 126 (1980).Google Scholar
15 But see Patricia Yancey Martin, “The Ambiguous Relevance of Gender in Rape Processing,”The Local Politics of Rape Processing ch. 7 (MS., Dept. of Sociology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 1993c) (“Martin, ‘Ambiguous Relevance’“).Google Scholar
16 Janet Gornick, Martha R. Burt, & Karen J. Pittman, “Strucrure and Activities of Rape Crisis Centers in the Early 1980s,” 31 Crime & Detinq. 247 (1985); Koss & Harvey, Rape Victim (cited in note 3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Jim Galvin, “Rape: A Decade of Reform,” 31 Crime & Delmq. 163 (1985); Kenneth Polk, “Rape Reform and Criminal Justice Processing,” 31 Crime & Delinq. 191 (1985); Mary Ann Largen, “Rape Law Reform: An Analysis,” in Ann W. Burgess, ed., Rape and Sexual Assault II (New York: Garland, 1988); Ronald J. Berger, Patricia Searles, & W. Lawrence Neuman, “The Dimensions of Rape Reform Legislation,” 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 329 (1988); Ronald J. Berger, W. Lawrence Neuman, & Patricia Searles, “The Social and Political Context of Rape Law Reform: An Aggregate Analysis,” 72 Soc. Sri. Q. 221 (1991); Carole Goldberg-Ambrose, “Unfinished Business in Rape Law Reform,” 48 ). Soc. Issues 173 (1992); Cassia Spohn & Julie Homey, “‘The Law's die Law, but Fair Is Fair': Rape Shield Laws and Officials’ Assessments of Sexual History Evidence,” 29 Criminology 137 (1991), and id., Rape Law Reform (New York: Plenum Press, 1992); Julie Homey & Cassia Spohn, “Rape Law Reform and Instrumental Change in Six Urban Jurisdictions,” 25 Law & Soc'y Rev. 117 (1991); Carol Bohmer, “Acquaintance Rape and the Law,”in Andrea Parrot & Laurie Bechhofer, eds., Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1991); Amie L. Nielsen, “Rape Law Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Florida and New York” (MS., Dept. of Sociology, University of Delaware, Newark, 1993).Google Scholar
We assume here that four conditions characterize legal organizations: The organizations' leadership directs the organization to fulfill its official mission; staff are competent to do rape processing work; legal organizations are (relatively) free of corruption; and staff are no more or less biased against rape victims than the general public is. Our analysis may not apply when other conditions exist. For example, if elected officials use their office and organization to feadier their nest financially or to give their friends jobs, and if official goals are downplayed or subverted, dynamics other than those we identify would have to be taken into account. See Alice Vachss, Sex Crimes (New York: Random House, 1993) (“Vachss, Sex Crimes”). Google Scholar
18 For a feminist discussion of needs, see Nell Noddings, Caring: A Feminist Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) (“Noddings, Caring”); Nancy Fraser, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory chs. 7 & 8 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989) (“Fraser, Unruly Practices”). Google Scholar
19 Our approach is supported by the research of Kerstetter (81 Criminology (cited in note 11) and Wayne A. Kerstetter & Barrick Van Winkle, “Who Decides? A Study of the Complainant's Decision to Prosecute in Rape Cases,” 17 Crim. Just. & Behav. 268 (1990)), who find that police and prosecutors' processing of rape cases is influenced more by bureaucratic demands, goals, and constraints than by the extralegal features of the cases, e.g., victims' characteristics; also see Frohmann, 38 Soc. Prob. (cited in note 11); Vachss, Sex Crimes; Linda A. Fairstein, Sexual Violence: Twenty Years in the New York Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit (New York: Morrow, 1993) (“Fairstein, Sexual Violence”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Erving Goffman, Asylums (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961); Erving Goffman, An Essay on the Organization of Experience: Frame Analysis (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1974) (“Goffman, Essay”).Google Scholar
21 James G. March & Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: Free Press, 1989) (“March & Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions”).Google Scholar
22 Gofrman, Essay.Google Scholar
23 Gofrman, Essay 21; David A. Snow, E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, & Robert D. Benford, “Frame Alignment and Mobilization,” 51 Am. Soc. Rev. 464 (1986); March & Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions ch. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Goffman, Essay.Google Scholar
25 Albert J. Reiss, Jr., & David J. Bordua, “Environment and Organization: A Perspective on the Police,” in David J. Bordua, ed., The Police: Six Sociological Essays (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967); Susan Martin, On the Move: The Status of Women in Policing (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1990) (“Martin, On the Move”).Google Scholar
26 March & Olsen, Redicovering Institutions.Google Scholar
27 Id. at 22.Google Scholar
28 Id. at 38.Google Scholar
29 Id. at ch. 2.Google Scholar
30 Id. at 22.Google Scholar
31 Id. Google Scholar
32 On members' agency in organizations, see J. Kenneth Benson, “Organizations: A Dialectical View,” 22 Admin. Sri. Q. 1 (1977); Robert Thomas, What Machines Can't Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).Google Scholar
33 Patricia Yancey Martin, Diana DiNitto, Diane B. Norton, & M. Sharon Maxwell, Sexual Assault: Services to Rape Victims in Florida: A Needs Assessment Study (Tallahassee: Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 1984) (“Martin et al., Sexual Assault”).Google Scholar
34 Patricia Yancey Martin, “The Local Politics of Rape Processing” (MS., Dept. of Sociology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 1993) (“Martin, ‘Local Polities’“).Google Scholar
35 Id. at ch. 1; cf. Gary D. LaFree, Rape and Criminal Justice: The Social Construction of Sexual Assault (Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth, 1989) (“LaFree, Rape and Criminal Justice”). Google Scholar
36 Rose, 25 Soc. Prob. (cited in note 6); Gornick et al., 31 Crime & Detinq. (cited in note 16); Diane Byington, Patricia Y. Martin, Diana M. DiNitto, & M. Sharon Maxwell, “Organizational Affiliation and Effectiveness: The Case of Rape Crisis Centers,” 15 Admin. Soc. Work 83 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 The particulars of rape processing depend on the protocols to which local organizations have agreed, die level of cooperation among staff, and the knowledge and skills of staff. Some communities have no rape crisis center; thus specialized RCC services are unavailable to victims. Martin and DiNitto found that medical examiners (coroners) conduct rape exams in five Florida communities and only one of them routinely contacted a rape crisis center. Patricia Yancey Martin & Diana M. DiNitto, “The Rape Exam: Beyond the Hospital Emergency Room,” 12 Women & Health 5 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Williams & Holmes, Second Assault (cited in note 2); Robert C. Davis, Ellen Brick-man, & Timothy Baker, “Supportive and Unsupportive Responses of Others to Rape Victims: Effects on Concurrent Victim Adjustment,” 19 Am. J. Community Psychology 443 (1991).Google Scholar
39 Mary P. Koss, “Rape: Scope, Impact, Interventions, and Public Policy Responses,” Am. Psychologist, Oct. 1993, at 1062, 1064. Cf. I. L. McCann & L. A. Pearlman, Pyschological Trauma and the Adult Survivor: Theory, Therapy, and Transformation (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1990); Fran H. Norris & Krzysztof Kaniasty, “The Psychological Experience of Crime: A Test of the Mediating Role of Beliefs in Explaining the Distress of Victims,” 60 J. Soc. & Clinical Psychology 409 (1991).Google Scholar
40 Koss, Am. Psychologist, at 1066; Patricia A. Resick & Barbara E. Markaway, “Clinical Treatment of Adult Female Victims of Sexual Assault,” in C. R. Hollin & K. Howells, eds., Clinical Approaches to Sex Offenders and Their Victims (New York: John Wiley, 1991).Google Scholar
41 Koss, Am. Psychologist, at 1065; Judith Herman, Trauma and Recovery (New York: Basic Books, 1992).Google Scholar
42 On feminist standpoint theory, see Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991); Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990); Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987). For a feminist model of rape processing, see Patricia Yancey Martin, “Feminism, Rape Crisis Centers, and the Politics of Rape Processing in the Community” (presented at American Sociological Association meetings, Miami, 1993) (“Martin, ‘Feminism’”).Google Scholar
43 For a feminist critique of the criminal justice system, see Kathleen Daly & Meda Chesney-Lind, “Feminism and Criminology,” 5 Just. Q. 497 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Martin et al., Sexual Assault (cited in note 33); Martin & DiNitto, 12 Women & Health (cited in note 37); Byington et d., 15 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 36); Patricia Yancey Martin, Diana DiNitto, Diane Byington, & M. Sharon Maxwell, “Organizational and Community Transformation: The Case of a Rape Crisis Center,” 16 Admin. Soc. Work 123 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Lin Huff-Corzine, Jay Conine, & David C. Moore, “Deadly Connections: Culture, Poverty, and the Direction of Lethal Violence,” 69 Soc. Prob. 715 (1991).Google Scholar
46 Martin et al., Sexiud Assault; Holmstrom & Burgess, Victim of Rape (cited in note 3); LaFree, Rape and Criminal Justice (cited in note 35).Google Scholar
47 Martin & DiNitto, 12 Women & Health (cited in note 37).Google Scholar
48 For an explanation, see Polk, 31 Crime & Delmq. (cited in note 17).Google Scholar
49 Martin et al., Sexual Assault. Google Scholar
50 Kerstetter, 81 Criminology (cited in note 11), suggests that police officers' reluctance to unfound rape cases sometimes leads them to give victims false hopes about the odds their case will be prosecuted.Google Scholar
51 Martin et al., Sexual Assault (cited in note 33); Diana DiNitto, Patricia Yancey Martin, Diane Blum Norton, & M. Sharon Maxwell, “After Rape: Who Should Examine Rape Survivors?” 86 Am. J. Nursing 538 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 Cf. Elizabeth H. King & Carol Webb, “Rape Crisis Centers: Progress and Problems,” 37 J. Soc. Issues 93 (1981). Physicians resist RCC staff's presence in rape exams, however, and often forbid it even when official protocol requires them to allow it.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 Cf. Barbara Levy Simon, “In Defense of Institutionalization: A Rape Crisis Center as a Case Study,” 9 Soc. & Soc. Welfare 485 (1980); Byington et d., 15 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 36); Koss & Harvey, Rape Victim (cited in note 3).Google Scholar
54 Frohmann, 38 Soc. Prob. (cited in note 11).Google Scholar
55 Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Forcible Rape m Leon County (Tallahassee: State of Florida, 1984). Susan Meyers Chandler & Martha Torney, “The Decisions and the Processing of Rape Victims through the Criminal Justice System,” 4 Col. Sociobgist 155 (1981), report similar statistics for Hawaii.Google Scholar
56 For similar points about interdependence in processing battered women, see Janell Schmidt & Ellen Hochstedler Steury, “Prosecutorial Discretion in Filing Charges in Domestic Violence Cases,” 27 Criminology 487 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57 Hospital ERs, rape crisis centers, judges, defense attorneys and juries are not strictly organizations in the sense that police and sheriff departments and prosecution offices are. They are units of other organizations in most cases although two rape crisis centers are freestanding and private defense attorneys may or may not work in their own (small) firms. For present purposes, however, we treat them as organizations in order to compare and contrast their characteristics and involvement in rape processing work.Google Scholar
58 O'sullivan, 3 Victimobgy (cited in note 12); Rose, 25 Soc. Prob. (cited in note 6).Google Scholar
59 Martin, “Feminism” (cited in note 42); Martin, “Local Politics” (cited in note 34).Google Scholar
60 E.g., Martin et d., 16 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 44). We thank Andrew Newman, Ohio State University, personal communication (1994), for noting that hospitals and RCCs make rape processing networks more heterogeneous, thereby complicating the cross-boundary exchanges of all concerned.Google Scholar
61 Byington et al., 15 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 36).Google Scholar
62 Karen D. Stout, “Intimate Femicide: Effect of Legislation and Social Services,” 4 Affilia 21 (1989), found that states with more rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters have fewer women murdered by intimate acquaintances.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63 Susan Martin, Breaking and Entering: Policewomen on Patrol (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980); id., On the Move (cited in note 25).Google Scholar
64 Cf. Eliot Freidson, Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).Google Scholar
65 Tacie Dejanikus, “The Years After: Rape Crisis Centers,”Off Our Backs, Aug.-Sept. 1984, at 17–22; Harvey, Exemplary Rape Crisis Programs (cited in note 12); Gornick et al., 31 Crime & Delinq. (cited in note 16); Byington et al., 15 Admin. Soc. Work. Google Scholar
66 Cf. Schmidt & Steury, 27 Criminology (cited in note 56).Google Scholar
67 See Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, “Discursive Politics and Feminist Activism in the Catholic Church” (“Katzenstein, ‘Discursive Polities’), m Myra Marx Ferree & Patricia Yancey Martin, eds., Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women's Movement (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994) (“Ferree & Martin, Feminist Organizations”). Google Scholar
68 See M. Sharon Maxwell, “Rape Crisis Centers as Feminist Movement Organizations” (Ph. D. diss., School of Social Work, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 1987). Rape crisis centers exist in such varied organizational forms that they defy characterization as a “type”; Dejanikus, Off Our Backs (cited in note 65); Byington et al., 15 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 36).Google Scholar
69 Cf. Vicki McNickle Rose & Susan Carol Randall, “The Impact of Investigator Perceptions of Victim Legitimacy on the Processing of Rape/Sexual Assault Case,” 5 Symbolic Interaction 23 (1982); Frohmann, 38 Soc. Prob. (cited in note 11).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70 Byington et al., 15 Admin. Soc. Work; Martin, “Feminism” (cited in note 42).Google Scholar
71 For data on gender composition among police, see Martin, On the Move (cited in note 25); Gary F. Jensen & Mayaltani Karpos, “Measuring Rape: Exploratory Research on the Behavior of Rape Statistics,” 31 Criminology 363 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72 On battered women, see Carole Warshaw, “Limitations of the Medical Model in the Care of Battered Women,” 3 Gender & Soc'y 506 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73 Martin et al., Sexual Assault (cited in note 33). Also Walsh found that women probation officers were less feminist in their attitudes and practices than the men were. Anthony Walsh, “Gender-based Differences: A Study of Probation Officers' Attitudes about, and Recommendations for, Felony Sexual Assault Cases,” 22 Criminology 371 (1984).Google Scholar
74 We omit rape crisis centers from Table 2 because their organizational framework and activities orient them to treat victims responsively.Google Scholar
75 E.g., Martin et al., Sexual Assault; Martin, “Local Politics” (cited in note 34).Google Scholar
76 Chancer, 1 Gender & Soc'y (cited in note 5); Margaret T. Gordon & Stephanie Riger, The Female Fear (New York: Free Press, 1989); James D. Orcutt & Rebecca Faison, “Sex-Role Attitude Change and Reporting of Rape Victimization,” 29 Soc. Q. 589 (1988); Mary P. Koss, “Detecting the Scope of Rape,” 8 ]. Interpersonal Violence 198 (1993).Google Scholar
77 Gary D. LaFree, Barbara F. Reskin, & Christy A. Visher, “Jurors' Responses to Victims' Behavior and Legal Issues in Sexual Assault Trials,” 32 Soc. Prob. 389 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78 Linda L. Williams, “The Classic Rape: When Do Victims Report?” 31 Soc. Prob. 461 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79 See Frohmann, 38 Soc. Prob. (cited in note 11), for analysis of the organizational logics that prosecutors use to reject some cases and select others for prosecution; also Vachss, Sex Crimes (cited in note 17); Fairstein, Sexual Violence (cited in note 19).Google Scholar
80 Norma J. Wilder, “Educating Judges about Gender Bias in the Courts,” in Laura L. Crites & Winifred L. Hepperle, eds., Women, the Courts and Equality (Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1987); Linda Hecht Schafran, “Importance of Voir Dire in Rape Trials,” Trial, Aug. 1992, at 26.Google Scholar
81 Frohmann, 38 Soc. Prob. Google Scholar
82 See Gail Steketee & Anne H. Austin, “Rape Victims and the Justice System: Utilization and Impact,” 63 Soc. Service Rev. 285 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83 See sec. V; see also Kerstetter & Van Winkle, 17 Crim. Just. & Behav. (cited in note 19); Kerstetter, 81 Criminology (cited in note 11).Google Scholar
SOURCESGoogle Scholar
Carole Goldberg-Ambrose, “Unfinished Business in Rape Law Reform,” 48 ] Soc. Issues 173 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karen A. Holmes, “Justice for Whom? Rape Victims Assess the Legal-Justice System,” 8 Free Inquiry in Creative Sex;. 126 (1980).Google Scholar
Wayne A. Kerstetter, “Gateway to Justice: Police and Prosecutorial Response to Sexual Assaults against Women,” 81 Criminologji 267 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demie Kurz, “Emergency Department Responses to Battered Women: Resistance to Medicalization,” 34 Soc. Prob. 69 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84 Ann W. Burgess & Lynda L. Holmstrom,“Rape Trauma Syndrome,” 131 Am. J. Psy-chicory 981 (1974); Koss, Am. Psychobgist (cited in note 39).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85 Rose & Randall, 5 SymboUc Interaction (cited in note 69).Google Scholar
86 Holmstrom & Burgess, Victim of Rape (cited in note 3); Pauline B. Bart & Patricia H. O'Brien, Stopping Rape: Successful Survival Strategies (New York: Pergamon, 1985).Google Scholar
87 Martha A. Myers & Gary D. LaFree, “Sexual Assault and Its Prosecution: A Comparison with Other Crimes,” 73 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1282 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88 Cf. Frohmann, 38 Soc. Prob. (cited in note 11).Google Scholar
89 Polygraph tests are difficult to administer and the results are notoriously unreliable. If a victim mistakenly identifies her assailant, the polygraph may not detect it if she is truthful, in her own mind. On the issue of consent, polygraph results cannot determine intent. A victim can fail a polygraph if she says no to the question, “Did you consent to having sexual intercourse with the defendant?” because she may have given verbal consent to intercourse under threat of harm from her attacker. A victim's blood pressure may rise because, yes, she said the words although she did not mean them. Most Florida prosecutors and law enforcement agencies use polygraph tests with victims sparingly but none denied their use altogether.Google Scholar
90 Martin & DiNitto, 12 Women & Health (cited in note 37); for similar issues for battered women at the ER, see also Demie Kurz, “Emergency Department Responses to Battered Women: Resistance to Medicalization,” 34 Soc. Prob. 69 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91 Estimates vary from 50 to 85% uninjured; see Koss, Am. Psychologist.Google Scholar
92 Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry (New York: Basic Books, 1992); Judith Lorber, Women Physicians: Careers, Status and Power (New York: Tavistock, 1984)Google Scholar
93 Other research by the first author suggests that gender is not always a good predictor of rape processing behavior if studied independently of organizational frames of activity and feminist understandings of rape (see Martin, “Ambiguous Relevance” (cited in note 15); Chancer, 1 Gender & Soc'y (cited in note 5); Walsh, 22 Criminology (cited in note 73); Christy Visher, “Jurors' Decisions in Criminal Trials: Individual and Group Influences” (Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Sociology, Indiana University, 1982).Google Scholar
94 Martin & DiNitto, 12 Women & Health. Google Scholar
95 Dorothy J. Hicks, “The Patient Who's Been Raped,”Emergency Medicine, Nov. 1988, at 106; Gail Abarbanel & S. Klein, Medical and Psychological Care for Victims of Rape: A Guide to Hospital-based Treatment (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981); Catherine A. Martin, Mary Cabel Warfield, & J. Richard Braen, “Physicians' Management of the Psychological Aspects of Rape,” 249 J. AMA 501 (1983).Google Scholar
96 Holmes, 8 Free Inquiry in Creative Soc. (cited in note 14), found that victims rated their treatment by physicians higher than that by nurses in rape exams, however.Google Scholar
97 Martin et al., Sexual Assault (cited in note 33).Google Scholar
98 Id. Google Scholar
99 See DiNitto et al., 86 Am. J. Nursing (cited in note 49).Google Scholar
100 Martin et al., Sexual Assault; Martin, “Local Politics” (cited in note 34).Google Scholar
101 See Martin et al., Sexual Assault. Google Scholar
102 Brodyaga et al., Rape and Its Victims (cited in note 12); Harvey, Exemplary Rape Crisis Programs (cited in note 12); Gornick et al., 31 Crime & Delinq. (cited in note 16); Byington et al., 15 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 36).Google Scholar
103 Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, “Feminism within American Institutions,” 16 Signs 27 (1990); also Katzenstein, “Discursive Politics” (cited in note 67). See also Hester Eisenstein, “The Australian Femocratic Experiment: A Feminist Case for Bureaucracy,” in Ferree & Martin, Feminist Organizations (cited in note 65); Claire Reinelt, “Moving onto the Terrain of the State: The Battered Women's Movement and the Politics of Engagement,” in Ferree & Martin, Feminist Organizations (cited in note 65); Frederika Schmitt, “Seeking Justice: A Local Center's National Campaign to Eradicate Campus Rape” (M.A. thesis, Dept. of Sociology, University of Delaware, Newark, 1994) (“Schmitt, ‘Seeking Justice’”).Google Scholar
104 Martin et al.,16 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 44).Google Scholar
105 Id. Google Scholar
106 Id.Google Scholar
107 E.g., Schmitt, “Seeking Justice.”Google Scholar
108 Cf. Michelle Fine, “The Politics of Research and Activism: Violence against Women,” m Pauline B. Ban & Eileen Geil Moran, eds., Violence against Women: The Bloody Footprints (Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1993); MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory (cited in note 8); Pateman, Sexual Contrac (cited in 8).Google Scholar
109 See Fraser, Unruly Practice ch. 7 (cited in note 18).Google Scholar
110 Id. Google Scholar
111 Noddings, Caring (cited in note 18).Google Scholar
112 Herman, Trauma and Recovery (cited in note 39).Google Scholar
113 Fraser, Unruly Practices. Google Scholar
114 E.g., Harvey, Exemplary Rape Crisis Programs (cited in note 12); Cheryl Hyde, “Did the New Right Radicalize the Women's Movement? A Study of Change in Feminist Social Movement Organizations, 1977–1987” (Ph.D. diss., Social Work/Sociology, University of Michigan, 1991); Schmitt, “Seeking Justice” (cited in note 99).Google Scholar
115 See Russell, Sexual Exploitation (cited in note 8).Google Scholar
116 See also Martin, “Local Politics” (cited in note 34).Google Scholar
117 Cf. Martin ex al., Sexual Assault (cited in note 33), for exceptions to this claim.Google Scholar
118 Cf. Martin et al., 16 Admin. Soc. Work (cited in note 44).Google Scholar
119 But see Martin, “Local Politics” (cited in note 34).Google Scholar
120 Cf. Kerstetter, 81 Criminology (cited in note 11); Koss, Am. Psychologis (cited in note 39).Google Scholar
- 18
- Cited by