Rape by any other name… Comparing sexual assault cases labeled “suspicious circumstances” to those labeled sex crimes

In sexual assault cases, the presence of victim- and case-level factors that align with rape myth beliefs are thought to influence law enforcement perceptions of victim credibility, which in turn, can predict case progression. This study examined the case narratives and investigative outcomes of 200 randomly sampled cases attached to unsubmitted sexual assault kits (SAKs) to compare the frequency of factors found to negatively influence officers' perceptions of victim credibility in cases originally labeled “suspicious circumstances” versus sex crimes. SAKs were submitted for forensic testing, and outcomes were compared between groups. Compared to cases labeled sex crimes, “suspicious circumstances” case narratives were 1.5 times more likely to contain statements indicative of a negative view of the victim's credibility (Exp(B) = 1.490; 95 %CI = 1.267–1.752; p = .000) (i.e., the victim engaged in risky behavior, provided inconsistent statements, was unable to provide details in their report of the crime, and had a criminal record, a history of promiscuity, or low intellectual ability). Yet, case label was not predictive of receiving a forensic DNA match (Exp(B) = 1.017; 95 %CI = 0.753–1.374; p = .91). Findings support policy and procedure changes, including routinely testing all SAKs and eliminating the “suspicious circumstances” label, to prevent victim credibility biases from influencing sexual assault case decisions.