A Conduct of Sexual Violence - Literature review Example

Criminology Dissertation Literature Review Table of Contents Literature Review 3 Rape Myths 3 Treatment of Rape Victims by Judges and CJS 4 Unconventional Legal Response to Rape 6 Experience of Sexual Abuse Victim 7 References 9 Literature Review According to Rapecrisis (2011), rape is regarded as a conduct of sexual violence, dominance and antagonism, where the suspect involves in sexual activity with the accuser without the accusers’ consent or with accusers’ false consent. It is stated that in this type of crime, the victim become subject to rigorous inspection throughout the investigation process in comparison to other crime. In accordance with the study of Briggs & et. al., (1997), the real rape victims are generally coarsened, overlooked and harassed by the criminal justice system (CJS) which is supposed to help them. Furthermore, it has also been stated that during the criminal treatment, the rape victims are often prejudged and ill-treated. Rape Myths The research of Fawcett Society (2007) stated that in the UK, at least 47,000 adult females are raped every year and according to public approach towards female rape victims, 34% of public consider that the victims are partially or completely liable for being raped as they behaved in flirtatious manner. In a society, it is usually accepted that public have a tendency to perceive victim of rape in somewhat negative manner. People basically observe world as just a place where misfortune happens only to those who earn them. This statement reflects that in several rape circumstances, the incidence is described by considering the situation where victim should have done something in order to evade being victimised. Several researchers have identified that in rape case, victims are regarded as sole initiator of their victimisation (Hart & et. al., 2007). According to Wolfgang (1958), victims’ direct and instantaneous action often leads to misfortune. In rape based action, several authors disputed that victim’s characteristic matter more in comparison to their activities. According to Frederick (1987), factors such as victim’s class, background, image of decency and physical appeal have certain impact on crime liability. Workman & Freeburg (1999) also stated that female victim’s physical attractiveness, sexual appetites, degree of intemperance and dress pattern can influence negative ascription in female victimisation. Belknap (1996) noted that the institutional beliefs in gender role stereotyping influence the rape case proceedings in present century. Treatment of Rape Victims by Judges and CJS Literally, a woman who appealed to be a victim of rape is treated with doubt. Any past sexual activity on her side is believed to weaken the truth of her claim and as practical matter reduce her right to control the characteristics of her sexual experiences. In order to obtain rape sentence, the regulation often necessitates validation which is quite challenging to find in a crime (such as rape) which is conducted in secret. Additionally, in rape case, the evidence of physical struggle, wound and rapid outcry is also quite hard to find. These aspects of rape reflect the general status of women who is characterised as temptresses and liar. Traditionally, successful rape claims comprise a virtuous woman, who is confronted by a disturbing stranger. However, in modern days the rape claims have changed considerably, where the tendency to blame the victims can be found in several cases. Nowadays, if the rape victim is considered as promiscuous, then most probably she falls into the category of ‘asking for it’ (Orenstein, 2007). According to Horvath & Brown (2013), in the global extent, both judges and CJS have been criticised for evaluating the credibility and truthfulness of rape victims by using conventional prejudgement. According to feminist viewpoint, there are several rape myths which have tendency to point the liability of rape towards the victims such as prejudicial, stereotypes and wrong views. The rape myths are embedded within the legal system and society and therefore reinforce culturally dominant assumptions regarding the character of victim. Russell (1982) claimed that the rape myths are extensively and uncritically acknowledged; generating rape supportive philosophy which is unfriendly for female, particularly rape survivors. The rape myths suggest that women must take liability for controlling the sexual deeds of man. They also underestimate the harshness of rape experience by interpreting it as hypothetically pleasurable act, rather than an act of violence (Doherty & Anderson, 1988). In accordance with the study of Frese & et. al., (2004), there is several factors such as nonappearance or existence of victim’s struggle or connection between rapist and victim influence the attitudes of judges towards the incidence. The possibility that a victim is held liable for her unfair treatment is higher when she was accustomed with the rapist. In has also been observed that in marital rape people perceive less violation of victim’s rights. More fascinatingly, researchers have also dedicated that gender outlook and rape myth recognition is related with response of judges towards rape. Unconventional Legal Response to Rape The development of contemporary CJS model is the state obtained to punish the wrongdoer, apparently delivering a reasonable and impartial reaction to crime. As such, the key concern in any rape case is that if victims are involved in the criminal process, then it has an impact on the outcome of legal case. Meloy & Miller (2010) stated that among thousands of rapes that occur in every year, few go to judiciary process. Besides, several rape cases are even not labelled by the survivors and often not reported to the police. If the rape is assaulted by stranger, the CJS might never able to trace a viable suspect and even when the perpetrators are arrested, most of the time rapes are misunderstood and prejudged by the CJS. Most probably, during the trial, the alleged victims may become suspect in the eye of judge. This problem is generated by the treatment of rape victims by the CJS. In rape case, the victims often perform adrift in the criminal investigation. The rape victim is even characterised as having the position of a bit player and treated like a sample of evidence. Travis (2003) also stated that in CJS, the honesty of the victims who reports being raped are assaulted, examined, mistrusted and even challenged for other crimes. Rape victimisation is exceedingly stressful, but the response of police, advocates and judges comprising disbelief, suspicion and harassment complexes the suffering of rape victims. Judicious viewers suggest that the victimisation of rape victims by legislatures of CJS and judges of the court is as bad if not worse in comparison to the original rape circumstance. In rape cases, the idea of gender neutrality has had influential impact in the jurisdiction. The gender neutrality approach has considerably reformed the regulations about sexual assaults. The key characteristic of gender neutrality approach is that in rape case it comprises both men as well as women as possible perpetrators and victims. This law has been criticised on the ground that in rape cases it lacks the persuasiveness (Rumney, 2007). The requirement of treating rape victims with diplomacy and sympathy emphasises a victim centred approach to female. The victim centred approach provides standards by focusing on the requirement and concern of rape victim and to make sure that the victims receive sensitive delivery of services in non-judgemental way. In rape cases, victims often necessitate waiting for long time for medical investigation and other examination. In victim centred approach, the desire of victims and their safety are concerned as utmost priority in legal proceedings (Ghazvini, 2002). Experience of Sexual Abuse Victim Grounded by several rape myths, rape victims are often prejudged by judge and CJS and largely disregarded by the police and prosecutors. This trivialisation makes the victims to become more unenthusiastic to seek assistance from CJS (Meloy & Miller, 2010). Immediately to the problem of rape arise, the sexual abuse victim experience countless agonies for misidentification of the case or failure of recognition of the truthfulness of the case. Rape case necessitates investigational components which often generate serious problems for rape victims. Besides, the investigational components also create serious hindrances for appropriate understanding of sexual oppression. In CJS, the legal explanation of rape result in intrinsic irony, since the experience of victim is troubled with specificity that cannot sustain in generally pertinent definition. Furthermore, in CJS, the rape experience is often horrified by describing the emotional and physical impact of the assault to the victim. According to Allison (1993), after reporting the incident of rape the victim require to tell every detail regarding the incident. Before taking any decision, the judges investigate into every intimate element of victim’s life, comprising her relationship with the rapist and other men. Her personal lifestyles are examined and it generates fear within victim regarding revelation of any flaws in her testament which might question her individual trustworthiness. In addition, absence of vital physical evidence at times ferment uncertainties in the mind of judges and place increased focus on evaluating her integrity. Cahill (2001) claimed that ‘second rape’ is often formalised during court proceeding as the victim require to enter into cross-examination with complete confidence in her individual understanding and require to clarify herself regarding certain conducts and also to elucidate them in specific manner. As the victim’s progressively inexhaustible clarification deviates from the epitome of self-contained partiality, she appears agitated to herself. The fault lies within systematic discourse of CJS which refuses the significance of any aspect which is not rational. References Allison, J. A., 1993. Rape: The Misunderstood Crime. SAGE. Belknap, J., 1996. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Briggs, D. & et. al., 1997. Assessing Men Who Sexually Abuse: A Practice Guide. Jessica Kingsley Pub. Cahill, A. J., 2001. Rethinking Rape. Cornell University Press. Doherty, K. & Anderson, I., 1988. Perpetuating Rape-Supportive Culture: Talking About Rape. The Psychologist, pp. 583-586. Fawcett Society, 2007. Rape: The Facts. Rape Never Funny. [Online] Available at: http://rapeneverfunny.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/rape-the-facts.pdf [Accessed January 28, 2014]. Frese, B. & et. al., 2004. Social Perception of Rape How Rape Myth Acceptance Modulates the Influence of Situational Factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 143-161. Frederick, J. T., 1987. The Psychology of the American Jury. Lexis Law Pub. Ghazvini, M. F., 2002. Police Protection to Victims of Crime. Deep and Deep Publications. Hart, K. J. & et. al., 2007. Whos to Blame? Criminal Justice and Victim Services Students Assignments of Criminal Responsibility by Gender. Quarterly Journal of Ideology, Vol. 30, pp. 1-19. Horvath, M. & Brown, J., 2013. Rape: Challenging Contemporary Thinking. Routledge. Meloy, M. L. & Miller, S. L., 2010. The Victimization of Women: Law, Policies, and Politics. Oxford University Press. Orenstein, A., 2007. Special Issues Raised by Rape Trial. Fordham Law Review. Vol. 76, Iss. 3, pp. 1585-1608. Rapecrisis, 2011. Rape and Sexual Violence. Information. [Online] Available at: http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/rapeampsexualviolence2.php [Accessed January 28, 2014]. Rumney, P. N. S., 2007. In Defence of Gender Neutrality within Rape. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, pp. 481-526. Travis, C. B., 2003. Evolution, Gender, and Rape. MIT Press. Wolfgang, M., 1958. Patterns of Criminal Homicide. University of Pennsylvania Press. Workman, J. E. & Freeburg, E. W., 1999. An Examination of Date Rape, Victim Dress, and Perceiver Variables within the Context of Attribution Theory. Sex Roles, Vol. 41, pp. 261-278. Read More