Debunking the Stranger in the Bushes Myth: The Case for Sexual Assault Protection Orders

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Shawn E. Fields
{"title":"Debunking the Stranger in the Bushes Myth: The Case for Sexual Assault Protection Orders","authors":"Shawn E. Fields","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2849871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rape mythologies about the “stranger lurking in the bushes” continue to inform attitudes and decisions by law enforcement personnel, judges, and juries. These archaic stereotypes prejudice sexual assault victims by conditioning factfinders to distrust rape allegations lacking corroborative evidence of a physical struggle with a stranger. In reality, over three-quarters of all sexual assaults in the United States are committed by someone known to the victim; more often than not the victim and perpetrator live, work, or attend school together. Given the perpetuation of rape myths, the incarceration rate for these “acquaintance rape” offenders currently stands at less than 1%. The failure of the criminal justice system to protect sexual assault victims from perpetrators with ongoing access to their victims puts victims at genuine risk of future harm. Moreover, existing civil restraining order statutes remain largely unavailable to sexual assault victims, because these statutes either require the presence of a romantic relationship or impose an unattainably high burden of proof for victims with little extrinsic evidence of physical assault. This Article advocates for a new Sexual Assault Protection Order that imposes no relationship requirement, operates under a lower burden of proof, and provides carefully-tailored prospective relief specifically designed for sexual assault victims. This Article also considers the constitutional concerns of critics who argue that restraining order hearings impermissibly adjudicate criminal guilt under more permissive civil procedures. The Article concludes by balancing these competing concerns, and recommending a model Sexual Assault Protection Order that can both provide tangible, attainable protection remedies to victims and adequately protect the rights of the accused.","PeriodicalId":54350,"journal":{"name":"Wisconsin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wisconsin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2849871","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rape mythologies about the “stranger lurking in the bushes” continue to inform attitudes and decisions by law enforcement personnel, judges, and juries. These archaic stereotypes prejudice sexual assault victims by conditioning factfinders to distrust rape allegations lacking corroborative evidence of a physical struggle with a stranger. In reality, over three-quarters of all sexual assaults in the United States are committed by someone known to the victim; more often than not the victim and perpetrator live, work, or attend school together. Given the perpetuation of rape myths, the incarceration rate for these “acquaintance rape” offenders currently stands at less than 1%. The failure of the criminal justice system to protect sexual assault victims from perpetrators with ongoing access to their victims puts victims at genuine risk of future harm. Moreover, existing civil restraining order statutes remain largely unavailable to sexual assault victims, because these statutes either require the presence of a romantic relationship or impose an unattainably high burden of proof for victims with little extrinsic evidence of physical assault. This Article advocates for a new Sexual Assault Protection Order that imposes no relationship requirement, operates under a lower burden of proof, and provides carefully-tailored prospective relief specifically designed for sexual assault victims. This Article also considers the constitutional concerns of critics who argue that restraining order hearings impermissibly adjudicate criminal guilt under more permissive civil procedures. The Article concludes by balancing these competing concerns, and recommending a model Sexual Assault Protection Order that can both provide tangible, attainable protection remedies to victims and adequately protect the rights of the accused.
揭穿灌木丛中的陌生人的神话:性侵犯保护令的案例
关于“潜伏在灌木丛中的陌生人”的强奸神话继续影响着执法人员、法官和陪审团的态度和决定。这些陈旧的刻板印象使性侵犯受害者产生偏见,使事实查明者不相信缺乏与陌生人发生肢体冲突的确凿证据的强奸指控。事实上,在美国,超过四分之三的性侵犯是由受害者认识的人实施的;通常情况下,受害者和施暴者一起生活、工作或上学。鉴于强奸神话的延续,这些“熟人强奸”罪犯的监禁率目前不到1%。刑事司法系统未能保护性侵犯受害者免受犯罪者不断接触受害者的伤害,这使受害者面临未来受到伤害的真正风险。此外,现有的民事限制令法规在很大程度上仍然不适用于性侵犯受害者,因为这些法规要么要求存在恋爱关系,要么对几乎没有外在证据的受害者施加难以实现的高举证责任。本文主张制定一项新的性侵犯保护令,该令不施加关系要求,在较低的举证责任下运作,并为性侵犯受害者提供精心定制的预期救济。本文还考虑了批评者的宪法问题,他们认为限制令听证会不允许在更宽松的民事程序下裁决刑事犯罪。文章最后平衡了这些相互矛盾的问题,并推荐了一种模范性侵犯保护令,既可以为受害者提供切实可行的保护补救措施,又可以充分保护被告的权利。
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
Wisconsin Law Review
Wisconsin Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wisconsin Law Review is a student-run journal of legal analysis and commentary that is used by professors, judges, practitioners, and others researching contemporary legal topics. The Wisconsin Law Review, which is published six times each year, includes professional and student articles, with content spanning local, state, national, and international topics. In addition to publishing the print journal, the Wisconsin Law Review publishes the Wisconsin Law Review Forward and sponsors an annual symposium at which leading scholars debate a significant issue in contemporary law.
×
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