Disparity Between Punitive Attitudes Toward Stranger Rape and Partner Rape: Evidence From Cross-National Survey Data

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Andrzej Uhl, Andrzej Porębski, Ewa Ilczuk
{"title":"Disparity Between Punitive Attitudes Toward Stranger Rape and Partner Rape: Evidence From Cross-National Survey Data","authors":"Andrzej Uhl, Andrzej Porębski, Ewa Ilczuk","doi":"10.1177/08862605241307618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While legally the same, acts of sexual abuse within and outside intimate relationships are not seen as equal by the public, and this distinction might also be reflected in preferred criminal punishment; some people might deem partner rape as deserving less harsh punishment than the rape of a stranger. Our secondary analysis examines differential punitiveness toward these two types of rape among the respondents ( n = 11,383) to a large population survey conducted in 2021 in Austria, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. As part of the survey, respondents chose preferred sentences for partner and stranger rape. Using these sentencing questions, we investigate the direction, extent, and demographic distribution of the differential punitiveness toward stranger and partner rape. A large group of respondents (ranging from 31.5% in Austria to 47.3% in Czechia) granted greater leniency to partner rape than to stranger rape and the reverse was rarely observed. More severe sentences were chosen for stranger rape more often than for partner rape. The individual bias toward leniency for partner rape was also typically stronger than the rare bias for stranger rape (the difference of 36 vs. 24 months of imprisonment, respectively). Relative leniency toward partner rape was particularly pronounced in Slavic countries, more prevalent among men, and positively correlated with age, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and rape myth acceptance. Drawing on our results and previous scholarship, we attribute the observed disparities to the persistence of rape myths and the legitimation of intra-relationship sexual violence by conventional belief systems.","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241307618","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While legally the same, acts of sexual abuse within and outside intimate relationships are not seen as equal by the public, and this distinction might also be reflected in preferred criminal punishment; some people might deem partner rape as deserving less harsh punishment than the rape of a stranger. Our secondary analysis examines differential punitiveness toward these two types of rape among the respondents ( n = 11,383) to a large population survey conducted in 2021 in Austria, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. As part of the survey, respondents chose preferred sentences for partner and stranger rape. Using these sentencing questions, we investigate the direction, extent, and demographic distribution of the differential punitiveness toward stranger and partner rape. A large group of respondents (ranging from 31.5% in Austria to 47.3% in Czechia) granted greater leniency to partner rape than to stranger rape and the reverse was rarely observed. More severe sentences were chosen for stranger rape more often than for partner rape. The individual bias toward leniency for partner rape was also typically stronger than the rare bias for stranger rape (the difference of 36 vs. 24 months of imprisonment, respectively). Relative leniency toward partner rape was particularly pronounced in Slavic countries, more prevalent among men, and positively correlated with age, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and rape myth acceptance. Drawing on our results and previous scholarship, we attribute the observed disparities to the persistence of rape myths and the legitimation of intra-relationship sexual violence by conventional belief systems.
对陌生人强奸和伴侣强奸惩罚态度的差异:来自跨国调查数据的证据
虽然在法律上是相同的,但在亲密关系内和亲密关系外的性虐待行为被公众视为不平等,这种区别也可能反映在首选的刑事处罚上;有些人可能认为伴侣强奸应该比强奸陌生人受到更轻的惩罚。我们的二次分析考察了2021年在奥地利、捷克、德国、匈牙利、波兰和斯洛伐克进行的一项大规模人口调查中,受访者(n = 11,383)对这两种强奸的不同惩罚程度。作为调查的一部分,受访者选择了伴侣和陌生人强奸的首选判决。利用这些量刑问题,我们调查了对陌生人和伴侣强奸的惩罚差异的方向、程度和人口分布。一大批受访者(从奥地利的31.5%到捷克的47.3%)对伴侣强奸比对陌生人强奸更宽容,而相反的情况很少出现。陌生人强奸比伴侣强奸更容易被判重刑。在伴侣强奸案中,个体倾向于宽大处理的倾向通常也比在陌生人强奸案中更强烈(分别为36个月和24个月的监禁)。对伴侣强奸的相对宽容在斯拉夫国家尤为明显,在男性中更为普遍,并且与年龄、右翼威权主义、社会支配取向和强奸神话的接受程度呈正相关。根据我们的研究结果和之前的学术研究,我们将观察到的差异归因于强奸神话的持续存在和传统信仰体系对关系内性暴力的合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信